HANUMAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide his judgment and order dated April 21, 1990 the Assistant Commandant and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, 3rd Battalion Cr. P.F. Imphal, Manipur convicted the petitioner of the offences under S. 10(b) and 10(h) read with S. 9(b) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act of 1949') and sentenced him to imprisonment in the Unit Quarter Guard for five days i.e. from 21-4-90 to 25-4-90. The period of his judicial custody in Quarter Guard from 17-4-90 to 20-4-90 was directed to be treated as simple Imprisonment. In appeal the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer did not find the case falling within the purview of Sec. 9(b) of Act of 1949 and therefore confirmed the order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offences U/s. 10(b), and 10(h) of the Act of 1949. Hence this revision petition u/S. 397, Cr. P.C.

(2.) The case of the prosecution against the petitioner was that he, being a member of the Force on 16-4-90 at about 8.30 P.M. kicked another member, Sh. B. R. Rao, on the face causing him multiple simple injuries on mouth, lips and teeth. On examination of the record of the learned Magistrate I am satisfied that the statements of PW. 1 N. K. Harjindra Singh, PW.2 N.K. Kishan Chand, PW.3 HC/Carp. B. R. Rao injured and PW.4 Dr. K. N. Rao, recorded during the trial of the petitioner fully prove that the petitioner struck with his boots, N. K./Carp. B.R. Rao on face. Mr. A. L. Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the concurrent findings of the Courts below on this point. Commission of an offence punishable u/s. 10(b)/10(h) of the Act of 1949 thus stood fully proved against the petitioner and his conviction, therefore, is sustainable on facts.

(3.) Mr. Verma urged that Mr. G.N. Kabadi, the Assistant Commandant and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class was not competent to try, convict and sentence the petitioner as the powers of a Magistrate of the first or second Class were not conferred upon him by the Rajasthan High Court or any other High Court. Reference in this behalf was made to Sec. 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C. for short). On a combined reading of the relevant provisions of law I am unable to accept this argument of Mr. Verma.