R D JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (Shri K.S. Sidbu) has reported this case to this Court under Section 430, Code of Criminal Procedure, with a recommendation that the order of conviction made by Shri S.L. Puri, exercising the powers of a Magistrate 1st Class, be quashed and the petitioner Shri R.D. Jain be acquitted. The order of conviction may appropriately be reproduced in extenso: - "Dont plead guilty. The first vehicle before me was stationary and after other vahices in front of me have moved and I overtook it and this Police Officer challaned me. I find him guilty of offence 78/112. So I convict bill to pay a fine Rupees fifty". The impugned order does not bear any date. Above the original order, the following subject-matter has been imprinted by means of a rubberstamp, some of the blanks of which are filled in ink: "Statement of accused without oath Shri R.D. Jain, 45 years. Occupation Private Service. Q. The complaint dated 781112 has been read to you. Did you commit offence u/s. 78/112? Ans. _______ _____________________ 19/12/1966 The accused pleads guilty. He is, therefore, convicted and sentenced to pay a tine of Rs................ .....u/s. 78/112 MVR/MVA or in default S.I. for..... ......... . day/months Announced. M.I.C. DELHI. sd/- R. D. Tain 19/12" The whole of the judgment except the digits"78/112" which are in ink is imprinted by a rubber-stamp.

(2.) What has just been reproduced finds place on the reverse of p. 105/3, of the record of the proceedings dated 19th December, 1966. At p. 105/3, there is a report by the Challaning Officer addressed to Shri S.L. Puri. In this report it is stated, to reproduce, so far as legible the actual language, "that on 19th December, 1966, on Panchkujan Road, at 5.60 p.m. Shri R.D. Jain, son of Shri R.D. Jain, 8. Janpath Lane, had committed the offence of comming from Mariana Hotel side, overtook stationary vehicle standing when 'Q' was formed in second lane and request that action he taken under the provisions of sections/rules 78/1 12 MVA/D.M.V. Rules, 1940." At the bottom of this printed form, the signatures of R.D. Jain are found beneath a printed matter which is left blank. This matter does not seem to have any relevance for the purposes of the case. After the leaf bearing No. 105/3, the subiectmatter on both sides of which has been reproduced, I find an unpaged full scape sheet, of while paper purporting to bear the statement of Shri S.I. Kailash Chander dated 20th December, 1966 and thereafter comes leaf bearing No. 106 which is also a report dated 19th December, 1966 by Kailish Chander, Challaning Officer against one Mohinder Singh, addressed to Shri S L. Puri. At the back of this report, there is a similar rubber-stamp in which it is entered that Mohilder Singh, son of Jeewan Singh pleaded guilty and was, therefore, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10.00. In this case, there is nothing mentioned as to under which provision of law he had been convicted. The record produced before this Court consists of the proceedings held by Shri S. L. Puri, on 19th December, 1966 when he disposed of 1 1 traffic caes I have also looked at the cases disposed of at pages 97/3 to 104/3 and they also reveal a somewhat irregular manner of disposing of traffic casas and of collecting fines. In the case of one B. S. Saxena of Pandara Road, on the reverse of P. 8713, the rubber stamp regarding the judgment is affixed above the rubber stamp containing the statemant of the accused which does not even bear iis name. Saxena's case also seems to mi to be similar to that of R. D. Jain, though in the former the fine is of Rs 10.00. In some of the other cases on this record, the reports are wholly illegible. One wonders how the learned Magistrate could have judicially applied his own mind to all those cases. This is the unhappy state of the record.

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge took pains to go through the record of R. D. Jain's case, but was unable to understand what the learned Magistrate had been talking about in his judicial order. The learned Judge has undoubtedly used somewhat strong language --which could have been mieder -about the efficiency and the sense of fairplay and justice of the learned Magistrate, who has been found lacking in both. While dealing with the white full scape sheet of paper, which purports to contain a statement of S.I. Kailash Chander dated 20th December, 1966, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has expressed bis opinion thus : -