BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This court in normal course does not entertain an application under Sec. 482 Code Criminal Procedure in cases where a party aggrieved by the order of the trial court files a revision against the impugned order and then comes to this court in an application under Sec. 482 Criminal Procedure Code. This is because when the legislature in its own wisdom has barred the filing of the second revision by the same party in this court law cannot be circumvented by taking resort to Sec. 482 Criminal Procedure Code. Yet in cases where this court finds that the ingredients of Sec. 482 Criminal Procedure Code. are satisfied, i.e., the order of the trial court amounts to an abuse of the process of the court or it is essential to pass an order to secure the ends of justice or to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure. This court cannot sit as a silent spectator to the order which otherwise results in gross injustice. The present case falls in the latter category. The petitioner Bhagwan Singh is a police officer who detained Natho in the police station. Natho filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner Bhagwan Singh for offence under Sec. 343 Indian Penal Code which, according to Bhagwan Singh, is a counter-blast of a charge-sheet submitted against Natho. Both these cases, i.e., criminal case No. 287/1977 State Vs. Natho and the criminal complaint No. 171/1979 Natho Vs. Bhagwan Singh were pending in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st class Bayana. Both these cases were listed in the court on 17.4.1985. Bhagwan Singh appeared in the court as a witness on this date. He did appear as PW 9 and his statement was recorded. For securing his presence in criminal complaint No. 171/79 the learned Magistrate had directed him to file a personal bond and a surety bond in the sum of Rs.1000.00, but he did not submit the same in the court on that day and went away without seeking permission of the court. Learned Magistrate sent a First Information Report to police station, Bayana at 5.30 p.m. wherein he mentioned the aforesaid facts and that accused Bhagwan Singh after having been taken into judicial custody, left the court without permission which has resulted in commission of a crime which is punishable under Sec. 224 Indian Penal Code. It was mentioned that he had read over the order of taking in judicial custody and directed him to file the personal bond and surety bond in the presence of Advocate Brijmohan Lal Gupta and Shiamlal Pancholi and his Reader Shri Jagdish Prashad Gupta. Police registered the case and investigated into the report. After investigation a final report was submitted. The learned Magistrate, Bayana took the cognizance of the offence against the accused and summoned the accused by issuing bailable warrants, aggrieved by which a revision petition was filed which was dismissed by the leaned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Areas, Bharatpur. Thereafter an application under Sec. 482 Criminal Procedure Code. has been filed before this court.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record placed before me. S. 224 Indian Penal Code reads as under:

(3.) From the perusal of the aforesaid Sec. it is clear that the case does not fall within part 1st of Sec. 224. It may however, be considered in the latter part of this Sec. which is about escape of the person in custody. The ingredients which are required to be satisfied are escape from the custody or attempts to escape from the custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence. The F.I.R. does not disclose that the accused has escaped from lawful custody. The word escape means to free oneself from or to pass out of danger from : to evade, elude: to slip out. There is nothing like this in the instant case. It appears from the report itself that the petitioner was present in the court from morning and he had got a statement also recorded. If he was to be taken in lawful custody the court could have asked him to execute the bond before even recording his statement. It cannot be conceived of that a person accused of an offence, if ordered to be granted bail, shall, unless there are circumstances to indicate otherwise, leave the court without executing the bond. There is already an order in his favour. Cases are not wanting when the accused feels that he will not be granted bail and is likely to be sent in custody escapes from the court but other way round cannot be inferred unless there are compelling circumstances. During investigation of the case it has also come that Honourable Mr. Justice D.L. Mehta was on tour at Bayana and the evidence of the prosecution witness himself is that learned Magistrate had attended on him after recording the statement of the witness. Thus, there may be confusion in the mind of the accused who was left on his own, but cannot be said that he had escaped from the court or attempted to escape from lawful custody. The police after thorough investigation had given a final report in that case and I do not find that the reasoning given in the final report were such which require the court to take a contrary view and take cognizance of offence under Sec. 224 Indian Penal Code. There is not an iota of evidence to suggest even from the report lodged by the learned Magistrate that the circumstances indicated wilful act on the part of the person even to leave the court without permission. As against this there is statement of the witness that Bhagwan Singh had left the court with the permission of the Court. His own statement when recorded during investigation, shows that he waited for the learned Magistrate after he had retired to the Chamber but he later on learnt that the learned Magistrate had proceeded to attend on Honourable Mr. Justice Mehta. He waited till the court hours. Shyamlals statement also is that he had left the court with the permission of the court. Looking to the totality of the circumstances I am of the opinion that taking cognizance of the offence under Sec. 224 Indian Penal Code, in the circumstances of this case, is an abuse of the process of the court. I would therefore, allow this application and quash the proceedings.