LAWS(DLH)-1975-2-17

AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE

Decided On February 26, 1975
AMRIK SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Ram Chand Chopra filed a complaint against Amrik Singh and the facts alleged tended to make out offences under sections 420 and 406 Indian Penal Code . To support the complaint Ram Chand gave his own statement and offered some documentary evidence. The magistrate passed an order for the summoning of the accused because on Consideration of the evidence a prima facie case under section 420 I. P. C. was made out against him. The accused approached the Session Court impugning the magistrate's order on the ground it was not a speaking order and deserved, therefore, to be quashed. He cited authorities of this Court in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Prem Lata, (1973) 9 D.L.T. and Mukarb Karim v. Bundu, (1973) 9 D.L.T. 318. The Additional Sessions Judge found these authorities to be fully applicable to the case and made a recommendation under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the order under attack being set-aside. The revision petition came up before Ansari, J. for hearing. He noted that apart from the two cases referred to by the Additional Sessions Judge there are two more cases Udey Bir Singh v. Smt. Shakuntla Devi. (1973) 9 D.L.T. 382 decided by Safeer, J. and Lakshmi and another v. State. (Cr. R. 75 of 1974) decided on 10.4.74 by Aggarwal. J. taking the same view. A different view was, however, expressed by V. D. Misra. J. in R. N. Bhalla v. Chatur Sain Gupta. (Cr. R. 303 of 1970) decided on 8.9.70 and by Ansari, J. himself in N. P. Chauhan v. Nirmal Kumar Chauhan (Cr. R. 104 of 1972) decided on 15.5.72. Because of this conflict of opinion he referred the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for its being placed before a Division Bench and an order was passed accordingly.

(2.) There was another complaint instituted by Lachman Singh and in that offences covered by sections 323, 451 and 120-B read with section 34 Indian Penal Code . were said to have been committed by Raja Ram and some other accused. This case came up before Shri Bharat Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. He examined the complaint and one more witness produced by him satisfied by this evidence that there were grounds to proceed further against all the accused persons u/s/ 323/451//34/120B Indian Penal Code ordered their being summoned. Raja Ram accused urged in the Court of Session by way of a revision petition instituted under section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code . that the order in question was not a speaking order and as such it could not be said that the magistrate had applied his mind to the facts of the case. The argument did not find favour with the Additional Sessions Judge and he dismissed the revision petition. Raja Ram then moved this Court through Cr. R. No. 9 of 1974 and prayed for the quashing of the relevant order under section 439 Criminal Procedure Code . The revision petition was put up before Ansari, J. and he referred this case also to a Division Bench for the reasons given in Cr. R. No. 158 of 1974 (Amrik Singh v. State and another).

(3.) Shri Manjit Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class dealing with the complaint of Minati Basu against Shri K. J. Bose and his two sons heard the counsel for the complainant, went through the entire evidence on the record and satisfied that a prime facie case was made out under section 342/500/34 Indian Penal Code . against all the accused persons, ordered that they be summoned. Shri N. L. Kakkar. Additional Sessions Judge, heard the revision petition filed by the accused persons and following the dictum of this Court in Manohar Lal v. Prem Lata made a recommendation for the impugned order being setaside. The conflicting decisions of Safeer, Aggarwal, V. D. Misra and Yogeshwar Deyal, JJ. in different cases were brought to the notice of Sachar, J. before whom this revision petition No. 188 of 1974 came up for disposal and he thought it proper that this matter be heard and decided along with Cr. R. No. 158 of 1974.