ROOP SINGH SINGHAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are four criminal references made by the learned Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, against four orders passed by Sri M.N. Asthana, judicial Magistrate, Roorkee; two such orders being passed in each of the two cases which were pending. None has appeared to support these references. I have heard Sri Shaukat Hyder Abdi on behalf of the State, he has opposed these reference.

(2.) The short facts leading to these references are that two cases being Case No. 59 of 1968 and case No. 60 of 1968. K.N. Srivastava Vs. Anand Swarup and two others; and Kailash Saran Vs. Anand Swarup and two others , respectively were pending against the accused under Ss. 420 and 406, Penal Code read with Sec. 34 IPC. The cases started on two complaints filed by the complainants Kailash Saran and K.N. Srivastava, employees of the Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Ranipur, Hardwar, against three accused persons, namely, Anand Swarup, P.C. Singhal and R. S. Singhal. The prosecution case briefly was that the accused had approached the complainants and represented to them that the accused had floated a housing scheme and thereby induced the complainants to purchase plots in a certain colony. On that representation, complainant K.N. Srivastava advanced a sum of Rs. 1,875/- and the complainant Kailash Saran advanced Rs. 1,700.00 to the three accused. The date fixed for the execution of the sale deed passed and the accused did nothing to transfer the plots. The complainants pressed hard that the sale deeds should be executed or, in the alternative, the money advanced by them should be refunded. The accused made lame excuses and twice issued cheques which were dishonoured. On these facts, the aforesaid complaints wee filed.

(3.) It appears from the order sheet of the case that the accused positively adopted dilatory tactics. First of all, they moved transfer applications to cause delay, later they began to ask for adjournments on the ground of their alleged illness. All this was repeated so frequently and persistently that it became obvious that the only intention of the accused persons was to cause delay in the case and, for that purpose, all sorts of expeditions and devices were adopted. In order to curb this deliberate attempt of the accused to prevent progress in the case the learned Magistrate on one occasion granted adjournment subject to Rs. 100.00 as costs and directed the accused to be present on the next date fixed in the case. This happened on Feb. 27, 1968, in case No. 60 of 1968, and on the same date, in the other case, namely, case No. 59 of 1968, wherein similar orders were passed. On the next dates, namely, March 4, 1968 and March 5, 1968, fixed in the aforesaid two cases respectively, again the accused absented themselves and asked for adjournment on the ground of illness. The learned Magistrate allowed the adjournment, but made it subject to payment of Rs. 100.00 as costs. These orders passed on about four occasions in the aforesaid two cases awarding costs are the subject matter of these references.