C L SAGAR ADVOCATE Vs. MAYAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms Mayawati, respondent No. 1, was the Vice-President and petitioner was a member of Bahujan Samaj Party at the relevant time. The petitioner lodged a complaint bearing No. 5278 of 1997 in the Court of C.J.M., Bareilly against respondent No. 1 and another alleging that on 21-3-1996 respondent No. 1 came to Amla-Bareilly to hold public meeting. The petitioner met her in the circuit-house where she assured him of a party ticket to contest the Assembly election from Faridpur constituency on his paying rupees fifty thousand. He believed her and paid the amount. Subsequently, her Private Secretary R. K. Vidyarthi, the other accused issued him receipt acknowledging payment of the said amount. Respondent No. 1 also nominated him as the District President of Bahujan Samaj Party. On 22-8-1996 she came to Bareilly and demanded further sum of rupees ten thousand, to which the petitioner expressed his inability to pay. On his refusal, she became annoyed and in the public meeting declared to have removed him from Presidentship of the district saying Bari Lambi Muchhay hai. Bare Imandar Bantey ho. Baeman Kahin Ka." This statement of respondent No. 1, according to the petitioner has harmed his reputation and he is looked down upon by the general public. It is urged, the aforesaid statement made in the public meeting was published in daily newspapers in the heading Bare Be-abru hokar teray kuchay say hum niklay'.

(2.) Learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the petitioner and two witnesses produced by him. Thereupon, he by order dated 19-4-1999 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 406/500, I.P.C. and directed for issuance of notice to both the accused persons.

(3.) Respondent No. 1, it is alleged, was not aware of the criminal proceedings and order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. She, for the first time, came to know when summons was served upon her and within four days thereafter she moved an application before the Magistrate to recall the order. The application remained pending till 9-1-2001 on which date her counsel moved the court to withdraw the said application since in the meanwhile a view was taken by this Court that such application was not maintainable. Thereafter, she filed revision before the Sessions Judge and along with the revision, she filed application for condonation of delay. Upon hearing the parties and having gone through the records, the revisional court came to hold that respondent No. 1 was not aware of the summoning order and no sooner as it came to her notice, she moved the learned Magistrate to recall the same. In such background facts, the Court excluded the time spent for prosecuting the case before the Magistrate from computing the period of limitation in preferring revision and condoned the delay. It is against this order the petitioner has filed the present case seeking Court's intervention in exercise of inherent power.