RAJENDRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed against the order dated 01/09/2017 passed by the 7th A.S.J, Indore in S.T. no. 32/2012, by which fine of Rs. 2000/- has been imposed on the applicant with the direction that the said amount should be deducted from the salary of the applicant.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case, warrant of arrest were issued against the accused. According to the impugned order, warrant of arrest was issued against the accused and the applicant committed negligence in execution of the said warrant and inspite of notice issued to the SHO, he did not file reply to the same. Accordingly, fine of Rs. 2000/- has been imposed on the applicant by the trial Court. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that from the order dated dated 03/08/2017 passed by learned 7th ASJ, Indore, it appears that the warrant of arrest was handed over to the applicant for execution of the same and since it was not served, therefore on 03/07/2017, a show-cause notice was issued to the SHO of the concerning police station, but it appears that SHO of the concerning police station did not file any reply. Under these circumstances, without issuing notice to the present applicant to submit his explanation in the matter, the trial Court directly came to the conclusion that the applicant was negligent in executing warrant of arrest and therefore, he is liable to be punished and accordingly, fixed the case on 21/08/2018 for passing order on the question of punishment. Thereafter, on 21/08/2018, no order was passed on the question of punishment and even on the said date also, notice was not issued to the applicant and on 01/09/2017, the finding was recorded that the applicant was negligent in execution of the warrant of arrest and accordingly fine of Rs. 2000/- was imposed on the applicant. It is further submitted that minimum requirement of the law under the facts and circumstances of the case is that the trial Court at least should have issued show-cause notice to the applicant asking for his reply and only after considering the defence of the applicant, the trial Court should have come to the conclusion that whether there was any negligence on the part of the applicant in execution of the warrant of arrest. The basic minimum requirement of giving opportunity of hearing and following the principal of natural justice have not been followed.

(3.) Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State submits that it is clear from the record that the case was old one and police authority was negligent in execution of warrant of arrest and in the interest of justice and in order to expedite the hearing of the trial, the trial Court has rightly passed the order under challenge.