VASU DEV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challan was submitted by the S.H.O. Lahori Gate police station in the court of Ms. Aruna Suresh, Metropolitan Magis- trate, Delhi, alleging that the investigation of the case had revealed that an offence under Section 186 Indian Penal Code was made out, and, therefore, the two accused mentio.ned in the challan, namely, Som Nath and Vasu Dev should be proceeded against and tried. The background of the facts given was that on 27-11-81, th.e S.D.M., Local Health Authority along with an Inspector and some other staff went to Shradhanand Market for the purpose of taking samples of food-stuff. They wanted to ensure whether any adulteral ed stuff was being sold. As they approached three shops bearing Nos. D-2, D-4 and D-6, the owners of the first two shops did not allow them to take any sample, and rather put the shutters of their shops on. In this manner, they defeated the raiding party from taking any sample. The third shopkeeper of shop No. D-6, of course, complied.

(2.) The S.D.M. then reported the matter to the S.H.O. police station Lahori Gate, in which it was mentioned that an offence under Section 186 IPC of defiance of lawful authority of a public servant had been committed, and, therefore, the matter be investigated. It was as a result of this investigation that the S.H.O. filed the challan in the trial court. The two accused were then summoned.

(3.) The present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been moved by Vasu Dev who happens to be the owner of shop No. D-4, Shradhanand Market. Three-fold objections have been raised by Mr. Joginder Nath. The first is that there could not be a joint trial of the owners of the two shops, No. D-2 and D-4 as the alleged offences committed by them, were separate and distinct, and did not arise out of the same transaction. Secondly, it is pointed out that the offence under Section 186 Indian Penal Code is nun- cognizable, and, therefore, the police could not have investigated the same, and the proper course was to have referred the complainant to the Magistrate concerned. This was not done. In this regard, reference is made to Section 155 Cr. P.C. Thirdly it is contended that in terms of Section 195 Cr. P.C., cognizance of an o'ffence under Section 186 Indian Penal Code could have been taken by the court on a complaint by the public servant alone, or an officer under whom he was working. No such complaint, it is pleaded, was filed by the S.D.M. who was heading the raiding party.