TEJINDER SINGH Vs. BHAVI CHAND JINDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revision petitions spring from the same order dated 5th May, 1981 of an Additional Sessions Judge permitting the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution of the respondents 1 to 5. Show cause notice was issued to the State (Delhi Administration) and I have heard the learned counsel for the parities at length. Normally speaking a detailed speaking order at the stage of admission is not called for but having regard to the peculiar facts of the case and fill dress arguments having been made before me, it is but meet that I record reasons for dismissing these revision petitions in limine.

(2.) THE prosecution case succinctly is that on 20th June, 1974, a party of income tax officials, inter alia, comprising S/Shri Tejinder Singh, Assistant Director of Inspection (Intelligence), J.S. Gill, I.T.O., Vijay Kumar and S.N. Balooni, Inspectors, duly armed with search warrants issued by the Income -tax Commissioner under Section 132 of the Income -tax Act visited East Patel Nagar Branch of Central Bank of India to effect search of lockers standing in the names of S/Shri Dharam Pal Jindal, respondent No. 2 and S.L. Aggarwal, respondent No. 5 etc. The object of the search was to unearth unaccounted for money/jewellary etc. Accordingly, locker number 1114 belonging to Shri Dharam Pal Jindal was opened in the presence of the latter and his mother Smt. Meena Devi Jindal, respondent No. 3. In the meantime, Shri Bhavi Chand Jindal respondent No. 1 Sh. S.M. Bajoria, respondent No. 4 and Sh. S.L. Aggarwal, respondent No. 5 too arrived there and before the contents of the lockers could be examined, these persons pounced upon Shri Gill and Shri Tejinder Singh. In the meanwhile, Sh. Dharam Pal Jindal passed on four diamond bangles and some other articles of jewelry to Smt. Meena Devi Jintlal who concealed the same on her body. Shri Dharam Pal Jindal tried to run away with the box containing jewellery. In the process Shri Tejinder Singh was manhandled by Sh. S.L. Aggarwal and his shirt was torn, Shri. Gill was pushed or the ground by Sh. Hhavi Chand Jindal. One of the Inspectors, namely, Sh. Vijay Kumar rushed to telephone Police Central Room which arrived the after about 20 minutes. In the meantime, respondents 1, 2, 4, 5 continued the scuffle with and obstructing the income -tax officials. However, on the arrival of Police force, peace was restored and Smt. Meena Devi Jindal was forced to return back the diamond bangles and two earrings. Apprehending that she night have concealed some more items of jewellery her personal search was got effected through Miss Menju Aggarwal another member of the raiding party. Personal search of Smt. Kamlesh Devi Aggarwal, whose locker was also to be searched, was too effected as it was feared that during the course of scuttle Smt. Meena Devi Jindal might have passed on some items of jewellery to her. A panchnama incorporating the details of the incident was prepared of the spot and a written complaint was lodged by Shri Tejinder Singh with the Investigating Officer at the spot. On 21st Dec., 1974, the police put in a charge -sheet under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) against respondents S/Shri Bhavi Chand Jindal, Shankar Lal Aggarwal and S.M. Bajoria, who were sought to be tried for offences under Sections 332 and 353, IPC. However, respondents Sh. Dharam Pal Jindal and his mother Smt. Meena Devi Jindal were mentioned in column No. 2 implying that there was no sufficient evidence for prosecuting them although they had been implicated in the complaint. The Magistrate while framing charges against the accused persons on 24th Nov., 1975, observed that from the police report and the other material on the record a prima facie case for an offence under Section 186, IPC was also made out against Sh. Dharam Pal Jindal and his mother. However, he could not take cognizance of the same for want of requisite complaint as required by Section 195 of the Code. Thereupon, the Deputy Director Income -tax instituted a complaint under Section 186 IPC against both Sh. Dharam Pal Jindal and, his mother Smt. Meena Devi Jindal on 26th Feb., 1976. An application was also made by the Public prosecutor to aliened the change against all the five accused contending that a case under Sections 147, 149, 186, 353/332 IPC was made out. He also prayed for condonation of delay in filing the complaint for taking cognizance of offence under Section 186, IPC. Accordingly, amended charge was framed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who by then was seized of the case on 22nd Jan., 1977. He also condoned the delay in instituting the, complaint in the interest of justice in terms of Section 473 of the Code.

(3.) BEFORE , however, the newly impleaded accused appeared, an application under Section 321 of the Code was moved by the Senior Public Prosecutor on 5th Feb., 1977, for permission to withdraw the prosecution against all the accused and the same was allowed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide an order of even date. Feeling aggrieved Sh. Tejinder Singh, the present petitioner, filed a revision petition in this Court under Section 397 of the Code, being Cr. Revision No. 208/77. The same was allowed by this Court (D.R. Khanna, J.) vide order dated 21st Dec., 1979. While observing that it was not sufficient for the Public Prosecutor merely to say that it was not expedient to proceed with the prosecution and that he had to make out some ground which would show that the prosecution was sought to be withdrawn because, inter alia, the prosecution may not be able to produce sufficient evidence to sustain the charge or that the prosecution did not appear to be well founded of that there were other circumstances which clearly showed that the object of administration of justice would not be advanced or furthered by going on with the prosecution, his Lordship clarified towboat it would be open to the prosecution to move a fresh application, if so advise bringing out judicious justification for withdrawal of the prosecution. In the meantime, the accused persons went in revision to the Court of Session against amended charges under Sections 147, 149 read with Sections 186, 332 and 353. It was, inter alia, contended by then that condonation of delay in instituting the complaint under Section 186 IPC was unwarranted by law and facts of the case. This plea found favour with the Additional Sessions Judge who vide his order dated 1st May, 1980, quashed the order of the learned Magistrate dated 22nd Jan., 1977, condoning the delay and amending the charge. The net result, therefore, was that prosecution against Sh. Dharam Pal Jindal and his mother Smt. Meena Devi Jindal was dropped and the case against the, other respondents was restored to its original petition i.e., pre -complaint stage and they were directed to be tried for offences under Sections 353/332 IPC only.