STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION Vs. BALROOP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal unfolds a sad spectacle. Here is a Magistrate who convicts and an Additional Sessions Judge who acquits but not by cooling into grip with the issues involved. Law has been the first casualty.

(2.) Here is the background.

(3.) On April II, 1983 Constable Bal Roop Singh of the Central Reserve Police Forces was on duty at the Jawabar Lal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi. It is alleged that at about 12.00 hrs..without having been properly marched out, be, of his own accord, turned back, left the Orderly Room of the Officer Commanding- without even paying due complements to his superior. Not only that he is allegede even shouted at his Company Commander in highly insolent and insubordinate manner and as such, was awarded summary punishment of seven days confinement to line. It is Claimed that soon after the announcement of the punishment he removed his web belt from his waist and started swinging it violently resulting in injuries on the person of one Prem Singh Deputy S.P. A complaint was thus made by one Vinod Seth, Assistant Comdt. before a Metropolitan Magistrate who also happened to be the Assistant Commandant 52 BN of the Central Reserve Police Force. This was on April 15, 1983. Consequent upon the filing of the complaint, a copy thereof was supplied to Constable Bal Roop Singh alongwith copies of other documents and the matter was adjourned to April 16, 1983 for "recording the plea of 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty'." On April 16, the accusations leveled against the accused were "read out and explained in Hindi language," and as the accused pleaded "guilty", be was convicted under Sections 10(e) and 10(n) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and on April 20, 1983 was sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Constable Bal Roop Singh preferred an appeal which was accepted by a learned Additional Sessions Judge. The main thrust of his judgment is that since neither any charge had been framed nor put to the accused, therefore, the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been "adopted" and consequently there was "no alternative but to quash the proceedings."