ABDUL RASHID Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing order dated August 20, 1986 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur Jhirka, Gurgaon, Annexure P-1, charge sheet Annexure P-2 and the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner are as follows :-

(2.) IN the return filed by the respondent it was averred that the trial Court before commencing the trial formed opinion after hearing the parties and inspecting the documents on the file that the case should be tried as a warrant case, as a sentence of more than one year could be awarded to the petitioner. The orders passed by the trial. Court were quite legal and the same were not liable to be quashed on the grounds mentioned in the petition. As regards the delay in the trial it was alleged that the delay was caused due to lengthy procedure laid down for the trial of a warrant case and due to procedural technicalities and the petitioner could not claim benefit of the same.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that all offences under Section 16(1) of the Act were to be tried summarily by specially authorised Magistrates. The Magistrate who was trying the case was specially authorised to try the case summarily, so warrant procedure was wrongly adopted vide Annexure P-1. There was non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act which vitiated the trial and the impugned orders were liable to be quashed on this ground. This contention of the learned counsel is, however, without any merit, as in the present case there had not been any violation of the procedure. Under section 16 (A) of the Act, a case can be tried as a warrant case if the Magistrate is of the opinion that the accused deserved greater dose of sentence and makes a note to that effect in writing. In the present case, the Magistrate applied his mind and passed order, Anx. P1 in the presence of the petitioner and his counsel. It was specifically mentioned that sentence in the case of conviction of the petitioner was likely to exceed one year. The petitioner had also desired that the case may be tried as a warrant case. In view of this order it was no longer obligatory on the part of the trial Magistrate to try the petitioner summarily and the trial was being conducted in accordance with law.