Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjay Gupta on 23 April, 2016
Unique ID No. 02401R0097402016
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI (PC ACT)-06, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 06/2016
Unique ID No. 02401R0097402016
State .....Revisionist
Versus
Sanjay Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Shushil Kumar
R/o 362, Gali Chandiwali
Paharganj, New Delhi.
& Others .....Respondents
Instituted on : 11th February 2016
Argued on : 21st April 2016
Decided on : 23rd April 2016
ORDER
1. This revision petition U/S 397 and 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is preferred against order dated 23 rd December 2015, passed by the Court of Sh. Sudhanshu Kaushik, Ld Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby cognizance has been declined on the ground that charge-sheet was filed after expiry of limitation period and application for condonation of delay is dismissed as prosecution failed to tender any plausible explanation for inordinate delay in filing the charge-sheet and consequently all the accused persons have been discharged.
2. In brief, facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are these. On 16 th July 2010, a FIR bearing no. 186/2010 was registered u/s 145/146/147/148/ 149/152/427 IPC at PS Pahar Ganj at the instance of SI Raman Kumar. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court on 14 th August 2014 C.R. No. 06/16 State vs. Sanjay Gupta & Ors. 1 of 8 Unique ID No. 02401R0097402016 and 27 accused persons were charge-sheeted. Allegations are that on 16.07.2010, between 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm, in front of Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan, Paharganj, New Delhi, accused persons formed an unlawful assembly to protest against a News Channel having its office in Videocon Tower. There was allegedly a mob of around 500-600 persons holding banners of RSS and were protesting against News channel "Headlines Today". Police officials directed the mob to disperse but they did not pay any heed and entered Videocon Tower and damaged its property. Case of prosecution is that in the incident, Ct. Raj Kumar and Ct. Kapil Kumar sustained simple injuries which were allegedly inflicted by the members of the mob. Accused persons were apprehended while other members of the unlawful assembly allegedly managed to flee from the spot.
3. Charge-sheet was filed by ASI Hira Lal alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the charge-sheet within the stipulated time. In the said application, it was mentioned that 27 accused were arrested by IO/SI Rupesh Khatri and then, case file was marked to SI Amrish Giri for further investigation on 4 th October 2011 and during the period between 4 th October 2011 to 15th January 2014, no investigation was conducted by IO/SI Amrish Giri and lastly, he prepared the challan and sent the same to the prosecution branch for scrutiny and in between, charge-sheet became time barred. ASI Hira Lal further stated that he received the case file from MHC(R) and found that case diary and riot camera CD was not placed on file, so discussed the matter about these shortcomings with the SHO Pahar Ganj and wrote letter to senior officer. It is stated that he contacted SI Amrish Giri, who handed over to him previous case diary and the riot camera CD on 15 th C.R. No. 06/16 State vs. Sanjay Gupta & Ors. 2 of 8 Unique ID No. 02401R0097402016 July 2014 and that as regards negligence/delay in investigation, departmental action was initiated against IO.
4. Notice of the application for condonation of delay was issued to the accused persons who appeared in the Court on 27 th October 2014 and copy of the application was supplied to them. They opposed the application by filing reply dated 17th January 2015, wherein accused persons stated that there was a delay of one year and 19 days which was not properly explained by the IO. The only reason given for filing charge-sheet after expiry of limitation period was the negligence on the part of earlier IO. There are catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts to the effect that delay has to be explained on day to day basis. It was stated that from the content of the application, explanation for condonation of delay attributed only on account of administrative reason was not sufficient. It was further stated on behalf of accused in their reply, that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP vs Amar Nath Yadav (2014) 2 SCC 422 in CBI vs Hukam Singh in Crl. L.P.No.345 of 2013 held that "....Nevertheless, court finds that the explanation offered for condonation of delay in filing criminal leave petition is wholly unsatisfactory. It is mainly on account of administrative delay and there is no convincing explanation for delay at every stage".
5. It may be noted that during argument, in order to prevent the re-occurrence of such matters (wherein charge sheet are not filed by the IOs within the period of limitation fixed by law and due to which accused are discharged by the courts concerned for failure to furnish satisfactory explanation for delay), this court C.R. No. 06/16 State vs. Sanjay Gupta & Ors. 3 of 8 Unique ID No. 02401R0097402016 deemed it necessary, in the interest of justice, to obtain report from DCP, Central District, as regards the cases pending investigation wherein the charge sheets had not been filed in the court and list of cases in which time for filing charge sheet were about to lapse within one month. As per the report received from Addl. DCP, Central District, it was revealed that there were 30 pending cases as on 9 th March 2016 wherein the period of limitation had expired and charge-sheets had not been filed and there were 7 cases in which time period for filing charge-sheet was due to expire within next month. In view of this report, copy of the order dated 3 rd March 2016 and 11th March 2016 of this court were ordered to be sent to the Commissioner of Police and Director, Prosecution to obtain similar reports from each district to ensure that the charge-sheets in the police stations of Delhi were filed in the court within time. One week time was granted to file action taken report. Time was sought thrice on behalf of investigating agency but no such report has been filed till date. Purpose of obtaining report was to make the investigating and prosecuting agency aware about the need of filing and ensuring that the charge- sheets are filed in court within time fixed by law in future by learning lesson from the present case. This court is not inclined to grant further adjournment for filing report as the disposal of this case is unnecessarily being delayed and has proceeded to hear and decide revision petition on merits. It would however not be out of place to note that copy of FIR in each case is sent by the Officer-in-charge Police Station to the Magistrate empowers to take cognizance as required u/s 157 Cr.P.C. and it is desirable in the interest of justice that the concerned Magistrate monitors the progress of investigation so that the charge-sheets are filed in the court within the C.R. No. 06/16 State vs. Sanjay Gupta & Ors. 4 of 8 Unique ID No. 02401R0097402016 prescribed period and the public prosecutor representing the state in the court is required to take necessary steps and can bring to the notice of the concerned magistrate about the factum of expiry of limitation in the cases/FIRs received by the magistrate.
6. Sh. Himanshu Garg, Learned Additional PP for the State submits that delay regarding condonation of delay has been properly explained by ASI Hira Lal in his application u/s 476 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that ASI Hira Lal stated that when the investigation of the present case was marked to him no case diary and riot camera CD were found placed on the file. He contacted previous IO SI Amrish Giri many times and on 16.07.2014, on his repeated requested SI Amrish Giri provided him the case diary and riot camera CD. Ld Prosecutor submitted that ASI Hira Lal sent a letter to senior officials regarding shortcomings and faults on the part of SI Amrish Giri and a departmental action was initiated against him. Ld Addl. PP submitted that Ld trial court did not appreciate the allegations against the respondents/accused leveled in the complaint and that statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were duly recorded. Ld Addl. PP submitted that delay has been explained and action against IO Amrish Giri was initiated by the department and that no prejudice has been caused to the accused persons and the police officials, who sustained injuries in the present case and the owner of videocon tower Jhandewalan whose property was damaged by the accused would not get justice, if accused persons were not summoned to face trial. It is urged that as per the instructions received from Insp. Rajender Kumar, SHO PS Paharganj, henceforth proper precautions would be taken so that challans are filed in the courts within limitation period and that order C.R. No. 06/16 State vs. Sanjay Gupta & Ors. 5 of 8 Unique ID No. 02401R0097402016 passed by Ld trial court is incorrect and bad in law and hence is liable to be set aside.
7. After hearing submissions advanced at bar and perusal of material on record, this court finds no merit in the contention advance by Ld Addl. PP for the State. Expiry of prescribed period of limitation gives rise to a valuable right in favour of the accused, which can be disturbed only in most compelling circumstances, where sufficient cause for not making application within prescribed time is shown to the satisfaction of the court, for securing the ends of justice. It cannot be held that because the applicant is state or a statutory authority, delay should be condoned even if no satisfactory reason or cause for delay in filing charge-sheet is furnished. Law of limitation binds everybody including the State.
8. In the impugned order, Ld trial court rightly noted that no explanation has been even tendered for the delay of around seven months i.e. between 15 th January 2014 to 4th August 2014. Record shows that all the documentation work had already been done by SI Rupesh Khatri in the month of July, 2010 itself. Most of the documents including the arrest memos, seizure memos, site plan bear date July, 2010. Even statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded in 2010 and entire investigation had been apparently conducted by previous IO. Record and police diary does not indicate that any further investigation whatsoever was done either by IO SI Amrish Giri or IO/ASI Hira Lal who filed application. During argument, Ld Prosecutor for State was asked by this court to produce the case diary for perusal to find out any ring of truth regarding averments made by ASI Hira Lal in the application for condonation of delay. Perusal of the case/police diary by C.R. No. 06/16 State vs. Sanjay Gupta & Ors. 6 of 8 Unique ID No. 02401R0097402016 this court did not indicate even any entry after 15 th January 2014 by any of the IO including ASI Hira Lal. As per Section 172 Cr.P.C., a police officer making an investigation is required to enter day by day his proceedings during investigation. There is no entry in case diary on record to show that previous case diary or so called riot camera CD were retained or not given by previous IO or were received by ASI Hira Lal only on 16 th July 2014. There is even nothing on record and case diary to indicate that any letter was written by the IO to any Senior Officer stating aforesaid facts regarding non availability of case diary and/or camera CD. Merely initiating a departmental inquiry against an IO will not suffice it in the duty of incharge PS as well as senior police officers having duty to supervise the functioning of police station. Therefore, this court is not persuaded by the arguments advanced by Ld Prosecutor.
9. No doubt, period of limitation can be extended in case appropriate explanation has been tendered for the delay but the period can not be extended on the mere asking of Investigating Officer or prosecutor. This court is in agreement with the view taken by the Ld trial court that in case of delay in filing the charge sheet, it is obligatory on the part of prosecution to provide reasonable explanation for day to day delay, otherwise provisions of Section 468 of the Code would be rendered redundant and nugatory. No satisfactory or plausible explanation has been tendered by the investigating and prosecuting agency for inordinate delay in filing charge-sheet in the court within prescribed period of limitation and no good case is made out by the prosecuting agency for extending the period of limitation by this court. Application seeking condonation of delay filed by the prosecution was C.R. No. 06/16 State vs. Sanjay Gupta & Ors. 7 of 8 Unique ID No. 02401R0097402016 rightly dismissed by Ld trial court and this court finds no fault in the impugned order.
10. It is pertinent to note and remind the state about the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State of UP vs Amar Nath Yadav 1, while quoting Postmaster General and Ors vs Living Media India Ltd's case, which are as under:
"In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there is bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government Departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
11. To conclude, this court finds no illegality, procedural irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order passed by Learned Trial Court. No interference in the impugned order is therefore, called for. In the result, revision petition is dismissed. TCR be sent back along with a copy of this order. Copy of this order be also sent to the Director-Prosecution for necessary action at his end. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT VINAY KUMAR KHANNA
on 23rd April 2016 Special Judge-CBI (PC Act)-06
THC/Delhi/23.04.2016
1 (2014) 2 SCC 422
C.R. No. 06/16 State vs. Sanjay Gupta & Ors. 8 of 8