Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Singh Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 20 March, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE
Cr.A. No.1129/2018
(Anil Singh Chouhan V/s. State of M.P.)
8
Indore, Dt.20.03.2018
Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellant Anil Singh Chouhan.
Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the
respondent/Lokayukt.
The petitioner, aggrieved by order dated 11.11.2016 and 06.01.2018 of the Special Judge, Anti- corruption, Dhar; whereby the learned Trial Court has forfeited amount of Rs.5,000/- of bond furnished by the petitioner for his appearance before the court for recording his statement in the criminal trial pending against the accused, has preferred the present petition. (2) Short facts of the case are that a criminal case was registered against the accused Hariprasad Gehlot for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered at the Special Police Establishment, Bhopal, Lokayukt Office, Indore. The petitioner was Investigating Officer of the crime. He filed charge-sheet before the Trial Court. The criminal case is pending trial .
(3) The presence of the petitioner was required for recording his statement before the Trial Court as he was the Investigating Officer of the case. The Trial Court HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr.A. No.1129/2018 (Anil Singh Chouhan V/s. State of M.P.) 8 issued summon for his appearance, which was served on him, thereafter vide order dated 26.08.2016 the Trial Court issued bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.5,000/- for his appearance before the court on 26.09.2016, which was duly served on him. But the petitioner did not appear before the court on the date fixed for his appearance i.e. 26.09.2016. The learned Trial Court forfeited his bail bond and issued show cause notice as to why the amount of the bond be not recovered from him and fixed 11.11.2016 for reply. The petitioner chose not to file reply of the show cause notice and nor he appeared before the court on the date fixed for this purpose i.e. 11.11.2016. The Trial Court ordered to recover the amount of bond from his salary vide order dated 10.11.2017. (4) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court was having no powers to issue bailable warrant against the present appellant. It has no power to forfeit the amount under Section 446-A of Cr.P.C.. At the most action can be taken against any witness under Section 350 of Cr.P.C. and maximum Rs.100/- fine can be imposed on him. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court is illegal. Learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Katuri Sreenivasa Rao V/s. State HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr.A. No.1129/2018 (Anil Singh Chouhan V/s. State of M.P.) 8 of A.P. and others reported in 2003 Cri. L.J. 1640, in which it is held that in case of non attendance of witness maximum punishment is a fine of Rs.100/- and nothing more, but this case is related to the proceedings under Section 350 of Cr.P.C., which is not the subject matter of the present petition. Therefore, this case law has no help to the appellant.
(5) Learned counsel for the appellant repeatedly and emphatically insisted upon pre and post proceedings of the relevant proceedings of the Trial Court and several time emphasised that earlier a summon was issued to the appellant for 25.08.2016 and on that day Holiday was declared for the Court, therefore, the appellant did not appear before the Court. On the next day i.e. 26.08.2016 the case was taken up by the Trial Court and it directly issued bailable warrant against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant again and again emphasised that the appellant was having heavy work load and was indulged in so many official duties assigned to him. He drew my attention towards Rojnamcha entry of 26.09.2016, which is the date fixed by the Trial Court for his appearance and submitted that he was busy with the law and order duties due to ensuing Moharram, Navratri HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr.A. No.1129/2018 (Anil Singh Chouhan V/s. State of M.P.) 8 and Dashara etc. He patrolled his area, convened so many meetings and was very much busy with the law and order situation. He also argued that the learned Judge of the Trial Court is use to register such type of proceedings against the witnesses and so many MJCs have been registered against many witnesses. He prayed to set aside the order dated 11.11.2016 and 06.01.2018. (6) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer stating that the appellant is negligent towards his appearance, even after service of bailable warrant he did not honour the process of the court. He has no respect towards the Court. His attitude shows that he even chose not to file reply to the show cause notice issued by the Trial Court and instead of approaching and apologizing from the Trial Court, he has directly come before this court, therefore, he is not entitled for any leniency. (7) I have considered rival contentions and perused the order and documents filed by the appellant. (8) The petitioner has not disputed that bailable warrant for his presence on 26.09.2016 was duly served on him and in compliance of the warrant he did not appear before the Court. It is further not disputed that the learned Trial Court opened MJC (Miscellaneous Judicial HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr.A. No.1129/2018 (Anil Singh Chouhan V/s. State of M.P.) 8 Case) and issued show cause notice to the appellant which again was duly served, but the appellant did not reply the show cause notice. In that situation learned Trial Court was left with no option except to consider and forfeit the amount of the bail bond furnished by the appellant for his appearance.
(9) It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner could not appear before the learned Trial Court due to his official duty. On the date fixed for his appearance he was busy with security arrangements in town as the Hon'ble Governor of Madhya Pradesh was going to come at Ujjain, therefore, he was busy with VIP arrangements as per the official instructions, but no supporting documents have been produced by the petitioner. A copy of Rojnamcha dated 26.09.2016 is filed with the present appeal which shows that on that day the appellant was remained at Police Station upto 12.00 and thereafter he visited several places of area falling under jurisdiction of his Police Station. He was busy with Jansampark (public relation). He discussed some isses with some persons, convened meetings, checked the suspects, visited some religious places, checked ATM and returned to the Police Station at 16.35 and thereafter HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr.A. No.1129/2018 (Anil Singh Chouhan V/s. State of M.P.) 8 proceeded towards Jhabua for search of an accused of Crime No.919/2016 registered under Section 392 of IPC. It would be better to read both entries of this Rojnamcha in its original words which reads thus :-
udy jkstukepk lkUgk Fkkuk egkdky mTtSu 45 vkxeu 26@09@2016 fujh{kd@ANI Okkilh T.I. bl le; lwpuk gS fd gokys gkfl;k dk jokuk 'kqnk eSa fujh{kd @okilh 16%35 PkkSgku e; vfuy flag pkSgku e; 'kkldh;
L SINGH 'kk- okgu okgu o pkyd vkj- 1460 ds CHAUHAN/ o pkyd okil Fkkuk vk;k okilh [kqyklk ds bykdk bl izdkj gS fd iqfyl LVs'ku ls 123/ Hkze.k ls jokuk gksdj Fkkuk {ks= rksi[kkuk] 430018538 csxeckx] dkap dk eafnj] ukfy;k ck[ky] lwjt uxj] i=dkj dkyksuh] xqnjh pkSjkgk] dkfrZd pkSd] ikunfjck] iVuh cktkj] nkuhxsV] tSu eafnj] y[ksjokMh] jke?kkV] gjfl)h pkSjkgk] t;flagiqjk o cMuxj] fparkeu ck;ikl jksM ij Hkze.k djrs [ksfj;r ns[kh ckn Fkkuk {ks= es vkxkeh R;kSgkj eksgjZe] uojkf= o n'kgjk ioZ ds laca/k esa tu laidZ fd;k o ppkZ dj feVhax yh ckn lafnX/kksa dks psd fd;k o mu ij utj j[kh xbZ ckn /kkfeZd LFkyksa o ATM dks psd djrs ckn okil Fkkuk vk;k okilh ntZ gS udy jkstukepk lkUgk Fkkuk egkdky mTtSu 46 izLFkku 26@09@2016 fujh{kd@ANI jokuk eSa bl le; lwpuk gS fd eSa fujh{kd 16%39 fujh{kd vfuy flag pkSgku gejkg vkj- 04 L SINGH pkSgku e; Hkojyky ds vijk/k dzekad vkj- 1 919@31-08-2016 /kkjk % 392 CHAUHAN/ vijk/k Hkknfo esa eky ewqfYte dh irkjlh HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr.A. No.1129/2018 (Anil Singh Chouhan V/s. State of M.P.) 8 123/ foospuk esa gsrq Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn;
>kcqvk ds vkns'k ij ftyk >kcqvk rjQ
430018538 jokuk gqvk A
(10) Thus, it is abundantly clear that the reason
assigned by the appellant for his non-appearance before the learned Trial Court is false as there is no mention in both Rojnamcha entries that the appellant was busy with some law and order situation or some VIP security arrangements due to the proposed visit of His Highness the Governor of Madhya Pradesh. On the contrary he left the Police Station for search of an accused. No document is produced on record to show that there was any urgency to go for search of the accused of crime of loot. (11) The first Rojnamcha entry, which shows that he visited several places of the area is nothing but routine duty of a Police Station In-charge. The second entry does not any urgency. Thus, both these Raznamcha entries shows that the appellant gave priority to his day to day routine over statement in a Sessions Trial pertaining to corruption for which special Courts have been constituted to give them priority over any other matters, which means instead of attending the Court, he chose to remain busy with his routine duty.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr.A. No.1129/2018 (Anil Singh Chouhan V/s. State of M.P.) 8 (12) Leaving all these things, if for the sake of argument we consider that the appellant was genuinely busy with some security arrangements with regard to the visit of some VIP, even in that case he could have informed the court regarding his inability or helplessness. He could have prayed the court for granting time to file reply. He could have informed the learned Public Prosecutor and could have easily file any application for extension or granting of time but nothing could be done by him for showing his seriousness towards his appearance or towards responding the show cause notice issued by the court. On the contrary proceedings of the court shows that even after receiving of show cause notice for filing reply on or before 11.11.2016 he did not bother to know about the order/proceedings of the court. After passing of the order on 11.11.2016 the court sent several letters to the Superintendent of Police, Ujjain for recovery of the amount from salary of the appellant and awaited for response of the Superintendent of Police, Ujjain for next more than one year. Nothing is there to show that during this period the appellant ever tried to approach the court and to explain the court with regard to his inability to attend the Court. He only woke up when HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr.A. No.1129/2018 (Anil Singh Chouhan V/s. State of M.P.) 8 the recovery was made effective by the Superintendent of Police on 03.01.2018. All this shows that the conduct of the appellant was never bona fide in dealing with the issue before the learned Trial Court, rather after completion of the proceedings and recovery of the fine amount after more than one year he has come before this court.
(13) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is only provision in Cr.P.C. to take action against witness, who faills to attend the court as contemplated under Section 350 of Cr.P.C. and in that Section the maximum punishment that can be imposed on the appellant is fine of Rs.100/- and nothing more than that. It is also argued that Section 446-A of Cr.P.C. is only applies on accused person or other person, who is not a witness in a particular case but both arguments are misconceived. I do not find any force in these arguments. Law is well settled on the subject and the Trial Court is fully empowered to take appropriate action under Section 446 and 446-A of Cr.P.C. against the person, who is negligent in honouring the process of the court.
(14) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the Trial Court was justified in passing HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr.A. No.1129/2018 (Anil Singh Chouhan V/s. State of M.P.) 8 the impugned order and I do not find any incorrectness or illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merits, liable to be and is dismissed hereby.
C.c. as per rules.
(Virender Singh) Judge ns Digitally signed by Neeraj Sarvate Date: 2018.03.22 13:25:37 +05'30'