SATNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR .G.L.Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment. The same is declined. The present petition came up for hearing before this Court on 31.01.2013 and the same was adjourned to 01.04.2013, since no one had appeared for the petitioner. On the adjourned date the case was further adjourned to 27.05.2013 at the request of counsel for the petitioner. On 27.05.2013 no one appeared for the petitioner, therefore, the case was adjourned to 10.10.2013. Even on the adjourned date none appeared for the petitioner, therefore, the case was adjourned to 30.10.2013 and even on that date no one appeared for the petitioner and as such, the case was adjourned to 30.04.2014. Then the case was taken up on 01.05.2014 and on that date also no one appeared for the petitioner and as such, the matter was adjourned to 04.11.2014. On the adjourned date Mr.G.L.Bajaj, Advocate appeared for the petitioner and he sought time to place on record the documents. Today the case was taken up for arguments in pre lunch session then a request was made on behalf of Mr.Bajaj, for a date which was not accepted and the case was directed to be taken up after lunch. When the case was taken up in the post lunch session, Mr.Bajaj appeared for the petitioner and prayed for an adjournment and the same was not accepted. He was requested to argue the matter but he did not advance the arguments.

(2.) WITH the assistance of learned State counsel, the matter has been thoroughly discussed. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner Head Constable Satnam Singh was posted at City Traffic Range, Bathinda. Respondent No.3 -Subhash Chand was driver of respondent No.2 -Surinder Pal Bansal. Head Constable Satnam Singh had challaned Subhash Chand -respondent No.3 for violation of Sections 179 and 181 of Motor Vehicles Act. The owner of the vehicle i.e. Surinder Pal Bansal -respondent No.2 lodged the protest before the higher police authorities that Head Constable Satnam Singh had no authority to check the vehicle and issue challan against Subhash Chand. The complaint filed by Surinder Pal Bansal was found to be baseless, thereafter, petitioner Head Constable Satnam Singh filed a Calandra for prosecution of Surinder Pal Bansal and Subhash Chand for having committed the offence punishable under Section 186 IPC. On the basis of Calandra filed by the petitioner, learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued notices to the respondents, Surinder Pal Bansal and Subhash Chand. Summoning order was challenged by way of a revision petition before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda by the respondents, Surinder Pal Bansal and Subhash Chand and the same was accepted. The operative part of the order is as under: -

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner was again asked by this Court as to how Head Constable Satnam Singh was competent to file the Calandra before the Court below without the authority of the Station House Officer or any other superior officer and after acceptance of the revision petition by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, how this petition can be presented by Head Constable Satnam Singh in his personal capacity. No answer was put forth by the counsel for the petitioner.