JASOD SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO First Information Reports, namely, F.I.R. No. 186 of 2009 and F.I.R. No. 241 of 2009, were lodged against the Petitioner, which were investigated. Upon investigation, charge sheets were filed. In the charge sheets, it was alleged that the actions of the Petitioner are such that he is also liable to be punished under the Goondas Act, 1970. The charge sheets were accepted and charges were framed. Petitioner, having denied the charges thus framed, trial was conducted. Upon conclusion of the trial, Petitioner has been exonerated. In the meantime, it appears that in respect of the selfsame First Information Reports, two administrative cases were registered, bearing Criminal Case No. 7911 of 2010 and Criminal Case No. 8821 of 2010. The Magistrate dealt with these two cases, when the criminal court had not concluded the trial. The Magistrate passed orders on the said criminal cases, as he was entitled to, under the appropriate provisions of the Gangster Act. Soon thereafter, trial by the criminal court was concluded and, as aforesaid, Petitioner was discharged from the charges levelled against him. Petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal before the Commissioner against the orders of the Magistrate. In the appeal, it was pointed out, amongst others, that a competent criminal court has held, after conclusion of trial, that the State has failed to establish involvement of the Petitioner in any action punishable under the Gangster Act and, accordingly, there was no reason for the Magistrate to pass the orders under appeal. The Commissioner, while dealing with the appeal, has not dealt with this aspect of the matter and, principally, on that ground the present petition has been filed.

(2.) THE fact remains, when the criminal court, on conclusion of a trial, has held that no case of the Gangster Act has been made out, the conclusion of an Executive Magistrate, to the effect contrary thereto, is certainly interferable in appeal and, if the same is not interfered with for no cogent reasons recorded, the appellate order is per se not sustainable.