Delhi District Court
Sh. S.M. Bhardwaj vs The State on 10 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR,
SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS (CENTRAL): DELHI
Crl. Rev. No.20/11
Sh. S.M. Bhardwaj
Superintendent, Rohini Jail,
Delhi ......Petitioner
Versus
1. The State
2. Sh. Satpal Bedi,
S/o Sh. Mangal Singh,
(In JC) Presently in Tihar Jail ......Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Present revision petition has been filed by Sh. S.M. Bhardwaj, Superintendent, Jail against order dated 29.11.2010 passed by Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate01, Delhi whereby the petitioner and two others have been summoned as accused for offences punishable under Section 324, 345, 357 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, on the complaint of Sh. Satpal Bedi S/o Sh. Mangal Singh, a convict, who is undergoing punishment in case u/s 302 IPC, at Rohini Jail.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that report was called by the Ld. ACMM only from Tihar Jail and not from Rohini Jail; Crl. Rev. No.20/11 Page 1/7 that the Superintendent Jail entered Rohini Jail for his duties at 12:15 pm whereas occurrence is alleged to have been taken place in between 10 to 12 noon; that the complainant convict was being confined in high security ward and on 18.11.2010, no one approached him except an Advocate for legal interview with him; that the convictcomplainant did not inform the Advocate about the occurrence; and that the impugned order is not a speaking order. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petition be allowed and summoning order be set aside.
In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to decision in M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, JT 1997(8) S.C. 705; Dinkar Khosla Vs. A.K. Mehta & Ors. decided by Hon'ble High Court of Uttrakhand at Nanital, on 08.04.2010, Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande & Ors. Vs. Uttam & Anr., 1999 AD (S.C) 609; Amar Nath and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1977, Supreme Court 2185; Dharimal Tobacco Products Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 1032 and Jag Narain & Others Vs. State of U.P & Another Criminal Revision No. 5610 of 2005 decided by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court decided on 06.05.2009.
Crl. Rev. No.20/11 Page 2/7
On the other hand, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor respondent no.1 and Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2complainant have contended that the trial Magistrate was required to only see if prima facie case is made out from the material placed before him to proceed against the accused and that the fresh material annexed to the present petition can not be taken into consideration while seeing legality and illegality in the impugned order.
Reference has been made to decision in Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and Others, (2004) 7 SCC 338, while contending that the Ld. ACMM was justified in issuing process against the petitioner and two others having satisfied on examination of the complainant and going through medical evidence placed on record, and as such revision petition deserves to be dismissed.
A perusal of trial court record would reveal that respondent Satpal Bedi, the convict undergoing sentence at Rohini Jail, was produced before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 20.11.2010, after his request was allowed by the Metropolitan Magistrate presiding over in Room No.152, Tis Hazari Courts, for his production before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The complainant - respondent herein submitted to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi when produced on the same day, that jail officials had beaten him in the jail. Crl. Rev. No.20/11 Page 3/7 He also showed injuries on his person while making his submission. Since Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi found that the injuries appeared to be fresh in duration, he directed Lock Up Incharge of Tis Hazari Court to get the injuries photographed and also to get him medically examined from CMO, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. Accordingly, the complainant - respondent was medicolegally examined at the aforesaid hospital, on the same day. Medicolegal certificate is available on the trial court record. Trial court record reveals that the complaint Ex.CW1/A dt.20.11.2010 came to be assigned up to Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. On 22.11.2010, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi recorded statement of complainant - respondent on oath. Ultimately, vide the impugned order dt.29.11.2010 the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi ordered for issuance of summons to all the three accused, including the present petitioner.
In his statement dt.22.11.2010 the complainant - respondent narrated as to how Jail Officials, including the petitioner started torturing him when he refused to move an application for transfer from Rohini Jail to Tihar Jail as desired by the petitioner herein on 10.10.2010. He also narrated in his statement the manner in which the occurrence took place on 18.11.2010 in between 10.00 a.m. and 12'noon, in the remand room Crl. Rev. No.20/11 Page 4/7 attached to the office of Assistant Superintendent Jail. Statement of the complainant - respondent regarding this incident further reads as : "On 18.11.2010 between 10:00 am to 12:00 pm, I was called in remand room situated with the office of the AS. The above mentioned both officials asked me to write the application for transfer to Tihar Jail from Rohini Jail. I refused to do it. After that both officials called the Sevadar. They got tied my both hands and legs with the help of Sevadar. After that, A.S. Rathor started beating me with danda and asked to write the application for transfer. On the directions of both officials my hair of the head was removed by the barber of the Jail. Again I refused to write the application for transfer. Mosquito Quill was brought by one Sevadar with burning condition on the directions of both officials. After that on the instructions of the both officials I was caught hold by the 45 Sevadar and AS Akhilesh Rathor started burning my back. After that I was free from their custody and returned to my ward and came to know that 'KAMINA' word has been written on my back. Both officials also threaten me that if I will not move application then they will kill me they also said that they write that I was trying to flee from Jail. All this is being done at the instance of one convicted Romesh Sharma who also live in high risk ward.
On 20.11.2010,I made a complaint Ex. CW1/A in this regard before the Hon'ble Court of CMM."
As rightly submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, in view of decision in Rajinder Kumar Sita Ram Pandey's case (supra), Crl. Rev. No.20/11 Page 5/7 Amar Nath & Ors (supra), Dharimal Tobacco Case (supra), revision petitions against the summoning order is maintainable U/s 397 Cr.P.C. There is no dispute over the legal preposition that Magistrate is empowered to order for issuance of summons to accused when he is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. One of the modes by which the court can taken cognizance of offence is on the basis of complaint containing facts which constitutes such an offence. However, before taking cognizance, the Magistrate is to examine upon oath, the complainant and the witnesses, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses.
It is well settled that summoning of an accused in criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of the Magistrate is required to reflect application of mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. In this regard, Magistrate is required to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record. The condition precedent in issuing process U/s 204 Cr.P.C. is however the satisfaction of the Magistrate.
This court finds that Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi was justified in taking cognizance against the petitioner, when he applied his mind and took into consideration the Crl. Rev. No.20/11 Page 6/7 entire material available on record including medical evidence for summoning all the three accused. Therefore, this court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The revision petition deserves to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room. Trial court record be returned for being laid there on 19.10.2011.
Announced in Open Court
on 10.10.2011 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi.
Crl. Rev. No.20/11 Page 7/7