SHRI ANURAG SAXENA Vs. CT. S. DAMODARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case which proves that the maxim 'justice delayed is justice denied' is not always true. The occurrence took place on 9th/10th September, 1979. The trial commenced on 10th September and on 11th September the accused constable S. Damodaran of the Central Reserve Police Force was found guilty of the charges under Sec. 10(n) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 by the Magistrate 1st Class cum -Assistant Commandant, 12th Battalion, Central reserve Police Force, Amerigog Gauhati. The learned Magistrate -cum -Assistant Commandant, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months by his judgment and order dated 11th September, 1979 passed in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1979. An appeal was preferred and the Additional Sessions Judge. Kamrup at Gauhati by his judgment and order dated 14th and 21st July, 1980 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 32 (K -3)/79, remanded the case for retrial after setting aside the said judgment and order of the learned Magistrate. Hence the present Petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Coy. Commander (F. Coy.) 12th Battalion, CRPF, Gauhati.

(2.) In short, the prosecution case is that on 9.9.79 the accused constable misbehaved with his platoon Commander, Sultan Singh and he also used abusive language and threatened to kill Inspector, Sher Singh. It is further alleged that on 10.9.79 the accused assaulted his platoon Commander, Sultan Singh in presence of his Officer Commanding, Shri Anurag Saxena, Deputy Superintendent of Police.

(3.) On perusal of the judgment of the learned Magistrate -cum -Assistant Commandant, I find that on 10.9.79 the accused was produced before him, particulars of charges were explained and the accused pleaded guilty. The accused also refused to engage any defense counsel. The learned Magistrate was of the opinion that all the three changes were proved beyond any reasonable doubt. But on perusal of the judgment of the learned Magistrate it is not clear whether his finding was based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution or on the admission of the guilt by the accused person.