BAL KRISHAN SHARMA Vs. RAJ BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC. has challenged an order of Additional Sessions Judge dated 24 -7 -1999 whereby he has dismissed a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate dated 18 -9 -1998. By order dated 18 -9 -1998, the learned Magistrate had dismissed an application of the petitioner for recalling the summoning order and his consequential discharge. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent, Mrs. Raj Bala filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner, a Police Officer, and three other Police officials for their prosecution for committing offences under Section 365, 325, 323, 452, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The allegations made in the complaint was on 6 -2 -1993 at about 3.00 P.M., the co -accused came into the complainant's house and asked her and her husband to hand over their son Mr. Naveen as he was wanted in a case FIR No. 92/93 under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. They were told that Naveen was not in home. They tried to take away the complainant's Husband, Jai Singh with them forcibly. She resisted it but was pushed down by the accused and in the process she sustained injuries on her person. Jai Singh, however, returned on 8 -2 -1993 with multiple injuries on his person. After the pre -summoning evidence was recorded the petitioner was summoned on 26 -5 -1994 to stand trial for offences under Sections 323 and 342 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner filed an application for discharge. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application by order dated 18 -9 -1998. The petitioner challenged this order in a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge which was also dismissed by order dated 24 -7 -1999. The petitioner is still aggrieved and has challenged that order in this petition.

(2.) BEFORE the learned Magistrate, the petitioner wanted his discharge from the criminal proceedings on the ground of delay in the trial in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause, a registered Society through its Director Versus Union of India & Others. JT : 1996 (4) SC 701. His contention was rejected by the Magistrate holding that a public servant who committed an offence while discharging his official duty was excepted from the benefit of the law laid down in the said judgment. Before Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner raised two contentions, firstly, that he should have been discharged in view of the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cited case and secondly, that the congnizance of the offence was taken beyond the period of one year prescribed by under Section 568(2)(b) Cr.PC., therefore, he should have been discharged. Both these contentions were rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, firstly, on the ground that the benefit of judgment of the Supreme Court is not available to the petitioner, who is government servant and had committed offences while on duty and secondly, the complaint was filed within a period of limitation of one year, therefore, the congnizance of the case was within the period prescribed under Section 468 Cr.PC.

(3.) NO arguments has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to be dis -charged on account of delay in the trial. The judgments of the Supreme Court in Common Cause, a Registered society through its Director Versus Union of India (supra) and R.D. Sharma Versus State of Bihar,, 1999 III AD Crl.SC 573 are no more good law in view of the decision of a larger bench of the Supreme Court in P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka. JT : 2002 (4) SC 92. Even otherwise nothing has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that he was entitled to a discharge from the case for inordinate delay in the trial of the case in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the larger bench.