Delhi District Court
Virender Dabas vs Court Of Own Motion on 14 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; NORTH EAST:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No.06/2013
Virender Dabas, S/o Sh. Ramanand,
R/o Village and P.O. Kanjhawla,
Delhi - 110089. ......Revisionist.
Versus
Court of own Motion
(Metropolitan Magistrate)
Seelampur, KKD Courts, Delhi30. ........ Respondent.
Date of filing of petition : 28.02.2013.
Date of Arguments : 27.07.2013.
Date of Order : 14.08.2013.
:J U D G M E N T:
1. Aggrieved by the part of the judgment and order on sentence dated 19.01.2013 & 29.01.2013 respectively passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate(NE), KKD Courts, Delhi in a case bearing FIR No.12/2001 PS Seelampur U/s 147/148/149/ 186/323/332/353 IPC titled as State Vs. Chaudhary Mateen Ahmed etc., in so far as the initiation of proceeding U/s 340 Cr.P.C against the revisionist, the revisionist has preferred the instant revision petition on 28.02.2013, which is being assailed by him on the following grounds:
(i). The impugned judgment to restricted part as agitated herein is not in accordance with Section 340 Cr.P.C.
(ii). Ld. Trial Court was guided by passions and Virender Dabas Vs. Court of own Motion (CR No.06/2013) Page No.1 of pages 8 missed the relevant points of law, in opting for initiation of the proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C against the revisionist. The impugned judgment does not make out the intention on the part of the witness to have deposed falsely. Nowhere, in the judgment has come to the conclusion that this witness intentionally deposed false hood, on the other hand Ld. Trial Court believed such portions of the deposition of the witness in convicting the accused.
(iii). Further having not arrived the intention of the witness, the proceedings does not stand the test of law provided under Sec.340 Cr.P.C.
(iv). The impugned judgment is liable to be set aside since Ld. Trial Court has not expressed anything with regard to the expediency of the intended proceedings. Only in the rare cases, where it is expedient in the ends of justice, the proceedings are to be initiated.
In the instant case, there was no expediency in the ends of justice, since the accused are convicted.
(v). The course of proceedings post judgment are in the nature of inflicting self incrimination against the revisionist and is against the fundamental right granted under article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Copy of the petition was supplied to Ld. Addl. PP for the State, who led his arguments in details. Arguments from the side of revisionist also heard in details.
3. The brief scenario of the emergence of instant revision Virender Dabas Vs. Court of own Motion (CR No.06/2013) Page No.2 of pages 8 petition are that FIR bearing No.12/2001 U/s 147/148/149/186/ 323/332/353 IPC was lodged with the Police Station Seelampur against the six accused persons and the present revisionist was complainant in the said FIR. During the trial, revisionist was examined as PW5 and after conclusion of trial, Ld. Trial Court had noted in para 64 of the judgment wherein it opined that the witness was not truthful and initiated proceedings under Sec.340 Cr.P.C and having received the notice of said proceedings, revisionist filed an explanation. Feeling aggrieved by the part of the impugned judgment in so far as the initiation of proceeding under Sec.340 Cr.P.C, the revisionist filed the instant revision petition.
4. I have given my prolonged consideration to the controversy in hand and have also perused the entire material placed before me particularly the impugned judgment and order on sentence, contents of the instant petition including the grounds taken therein and also the explanation filed by the revisionist, to the show cause notice dated 30.01.2013, before the Ld. MM (NE) and in my considered opinion there is a substance in the instant revision petition and this is not a fit case to launch prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C as the explanations put forwarded by the revisionist are satisfactory i.e. due to the long passage of time between the incident and the witness examination, clubbed with a very poor memory of his, could not able to narrate the scenes of incident to the satisfaction of the court. Further the revisionist had no intention to save the skin of any persons named in the FIR nor he had any malafide to cause a dent in the administration of justice or to protect any wrongdoer to malign the process of law while dealing with the accused, but for failing memory; and the circumstances does not warrant initiation of the said Virender Dabas Vs. Court of own Motion (CR No.06/2013) Page No.3 of pages 8 proceedings.
5. In his explanation to the show cause notice dated 30.01.2013, it has been stated by the revisionist that he hails from a farming village of Kanjhawala in North West Delhi and belongs to an agricultural community. He joined his service as peon in the year 1982 under handicapped quota and in the year of 1995, he was promoted as an LDC and worked in government department as per orders. In the year 2001, at the time of incident which led to the filing of said FIR bearing no. 12/2001 and subsequently, after decision on the case in the aforesaid FIR, culminated into the present show cause proceeding, the revisionist was posted in the office of SDM (Punjabi Bagh) as an election staff. As the respondent was not very good in drafting of letters or in public dealing, the officers mostly used to assign diary and dispatch and the work of a peon. When the SDMs were assigned the job of sealing the polluting units in view of the court's order, the SDM (Punjabi Bagh) used to take the respondent alongwith him for sealing the polluting units and respondent used to assist him in locking and sealing of polluting industries & factories involving the labor of putting locks on doors and sealing them with wax etc. Further on the unfortunate day of incident in 2001, the revisionist was with the SDM (Punjabi Bagh) to seal polluting factories under Seelampur P.S. in North East District. As the factory workers/public were protesting against the sealing drives at that time, large number of people gathered at the place where they were sealing one unit and created a lot of disturbance and commotion at the scene of sealing of the unit. While some persons were dragging the SDM into the unit, some people pushed him forcibly and in the whole pushing and pulling, the revisionist sustained minor injuries on rib/back, Virender Dabas Vs. Court of own Motion (CR No.06/2013) Page No.4 of pages 8 in consequence thereof, the revisionist was taken by the local police to the GTB Hospital for first aid/treatment. Later, the revisionist came to know that the SDM had lodged a complaint in the Seelampur P.S. The revisionist released by the police after the first aid from the Seelampur P.S. Further the revisionist, when called for witness by the Court, had only deposed truthfully and stated the facts as per his memory. The respondent was not in a position to recognize any person in the doc for the reason that at the time of the incident, a large number of crowds gathered in a moblike scenario and created a very threatening situation causing a scenario even to safeguard themselves physically becoming a difficult proposition. The revisionist sustained even injuries due to pulling and pushing by the mob with lot of shouting etc. As the whole incident lasted for a very small momentary time, the revisionist could not register the faces of the furious mob in his poor memory. It was due to this reason, the revisionist could not identify any people standing in the court. The revisionist being the resident of Kanjhawala of North West District and as never worked in any place of North East District, and also having no friends or relatives in this part of Delhi, do not know the people or places of the area of the incident. It has also been explained that the revisionist, due to the long passage of time between the incident and the witness examination, clubbed with a very poor memory of his, could not able to narrate the scenes of incident to the satisfaction of the court. Further the revisionist had no intention to save the skin of any persons named in the FIR nor he has put to any force, coercion by any accused from any corner. Further the revisionist is also a chronic asthmatic patient having other health ailments frequently troubling the weak revisionist, who Virender Dabas Vs. Court of own Motion (CR No.06/2013) Page No.5 of pages 8 is also on the very verge of the retirement and also the only bread earner in the family.
In AIR 1971 SC 1367 titled as Chajoo Ram Vs. Radhey Shyam it was held as under: "The prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by courts only in those cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. No doubt giving of false evidence and filing false affidavit is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand but to start prosecution for perjury too readily and too frequently without due care and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful material defeats its very purpose. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent and not merely because there is some inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent or immaterial. There must be prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge. ......... Lastly, there is also the question of long lapse of time of more than ten years since the filing of the affidavit which is the subject matter of the charge. This factor is also Virender Dabas Vs. Court of own Motion (CR No.06/2013) Page No.6 of pages 8 not wholly irrelevant for considering the question of expediency of initiating prosecution for the alleged perjury. ....." In view of the aforesaid settled law, Ld. MM (NE) should have considered the aforementioned explanation put forwarded by him as to under what circumstances he had given statement.
In 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) titled as State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P. Venugopal, it was held, "Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 340 - Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C for prosecution of person for giving false statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C - The person did not completely disowned giving of statement but made an attempt to explain under what circumstances she had given statement - Not a fit case to launch prosecution under Section 340."
6. In view of the explanation put forwarded by the revisionist as well the aforementioned settled prepositions of law, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to launch prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C against the revisionist. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the show cause notice dated 30.01.2013 stands withdrawn.
7. With this revision petitioner stands disposed off.
8. Copy of the judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court for information.
9. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in the open (RAKESH KUMAR)
th
Court on 14 August, 2013) Addl. Sessions Judge/North East
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Virender Dabas Vs. Court of own Motion (CR No.06/2013) Page No.7 of pages 8
CR No.06/2013
Virender Dabas Vs. Court of own Motion
14.08.2013
Present: As before.
Vide a separate judgment, revision petition of the revisionist stands disposed off.
Copy of judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court for information.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(RAKESH KUMAR) ASJ02 (NE): KKD Delhi 14.08.2013 Virender Dabas Vs. Court of own Motion (CR No.06/2013) Page No.8 of pages 8