GAURAV AGGARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was brought before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate to face trial as an accused on the basis of report ("charge sheet") under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), presented on 03.07.2002, upon conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) No.560/2001 of Police Station Mukherjee Nagar on allegations of his involvement in certain acts of commission and omission constituting offences punishable under sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Metropolitan Magistrate having taken cognizance and issued process, secured the presence of the petitioner and eventually put him on trial on the basis of notice under Section 251 of Cr. PC, issued and served on 12.09.2002. The proceedings in the criminal case (No.789/2002) came to an end on 21.08.2013 with the order recorded by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) holding the petitioner guilty and convicting him for offences under sections 279 and 338 IPC on the basis of "plea of guilt", this being followed by award of punishment in the form of fine of Rs.500/- on each count, the default sentence being simple imprisonment for five days. Noticeably, the fine was deposited on the same day on behalf of the petitioner (he himself not being present) by his surety.

(2.) The petitioner challenged the legality, correctness and propriety of the aforesaid order dated 21.08.2013 in the court of sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by filing a petition (Criminal Revision No.24/2015). The Additional Sessions Judge, however, was not impressed. He concluded that there was no error committed by the trial court, the order passed leading to conviction and sentencing as above being reasoned and speaking, there being no grounds for any interference.

(3.) The petition at hand was filed invoking the inherent power of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to assail the legality and propriety of the above mentioned proceedings of the ACMM and the view taken by decision dated 12.07.2016 of the revisional court.