S I MANOJ PANT Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 21 June 1996, whereby charges under Section 218/220/221 and 342 Indian Penal Code were framed against the petitioner, S.I.Manoj Pant.

(2.) The undisputed material facts leading to the filing of this petition are that on 10 August 1991, the petitioner, who at the relevant time was a Sub-Inspector, along with the staff of Special Staff, East District, apprehended one Lokesh Kumar in FIR No.304/91 under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 10 and 55 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 registered at PS Krishna Nagar. On the disclosure statement of the said Lokesh Kumar, the petitioner apprehended one Anil Solanki, produced him before the Officer Incharge of the Special Staff, East District, who directed the petitioner to book the accused as per law. On the disclosures made by the said persons, 146 gas cylinders were recovered from both the accused. Later on it was reported on 11 August 1991, to the said officer and his senior officers, that the petitioner had let off the main accused Anil Solanki with malafide intention for illegal gratification and in his place had implicated his relative Gajender Singh and for that framed incorrect record with the intention to save concerned person from punishment and wrongful confinement of Gajender Singh. Being a public servant, on the direction of his officer Incharge, a case under Sections 218/220/221/342/193/161 Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner.

(3.) After investigations, challan against the petitioner was filed on 6 March 1993. At the stage of consideration for charge, an objection was raised before the trial court on behalf of the petitioner that his prosecution having been instituted more than three months of the act complained of and without proper and valid sanction of the Lt. Governor, requisite under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and as such no charge could be framed against him. However, relying on the order dated 29 October 1992, passed on prosecution's application, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, held that since delay in filing the charge sheet had already been condoned by virtue of the said order, cognizance of the offence was not barred by limitation. Rejecting the objection, vide order dated 2 May 1996, he directed framing of charge against the petitioner under the aforenoted Sections. Accordingly, the charges were framed on 21 June 1996. Hence the present petition.