Delhi District Court
Surender Prasad vs Manoj Kumar (SubInspector) on 30 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04 & SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT: SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
CR No. 417 of 2018
Surender Prasad,
S/o Sh. Nandji Prasad,
R/o B339, Indira Camp,
Okhla Phase1,
New Delhi 110020 ..........Revisionist
Vs.
1. Manoj Kumar (SubInspector),
Belt No. D4904
2. Parveen Kumar (SubInspector),
Belt No. D4313,
3. Raj Kumar,
Belt No. D4735,
All are posted at:
PS Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi ..........Respondent
Instituted on : 06.06.2018
Argued on : 09.04.2019
Decided on : 30.04.2019
ORDER
1 The revisionist has impugned the order dated 07.12.2017 vide which complaint was returned u/s 201 Cr.PC as allegations made in the complaint come within the ambit of "Prevention of Corruption Act". Surender Prasad Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. CR No. 417 of 2018 1/8 2 The revision has been filed on the grounds that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record. The evidence on the record also shows that he has also sustained injuries. The evidence has been weighed meticulously by Ld. Trial Court by relying upon the compliance report dated 02.07.2015. Ld. Trial Court has erred in dismissing the complaint for the want of jurisdiction under Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, this revision.
3 The revisionist has also filed an application u/s 5 of Limitation Act with the averments that there is delay of 91 days in filing the revision. He was not keeping good health. His son was not keeping good health. He has been engaged in looking after the job. He belongs to financially weaker section of society. He is facing hardships. All these facts led to delay in filing the revision petition.
4 The notice of the revision is issued to the respondents. 5 The facts of the case are like this. The revisionist has filed a complaint against the respondents with the allegations that respondents are police officials who are posted at PS, Okhla Industrial Area. His brother Raja Ram used to quarrel with him regarding his eviction from his jhuggi. On 08.01.2014 at 10:00 PM his brother Raja Ram came in a drunken condition Surender Prasad Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. CR No. 417 of 2018 2/8 and started abusing and fighting with him. He has made a PCR Call. Respondent No. 1 alongwith Ct. Premvir reached on the spot. Respondent no. 1 took him to PS, OIA, where he was intimidated and kept in custody. He was taken to 3rd Floor of the PS where he was locked. Respondent No. 1 alongwith respondent nos. 2 & 3 started hitting him without any reason and refused to stop beating unless a sum of Rs.10,000/ is given to them. He was hit with force on the left ear by respondent no. 1 as a result he has fainted and collapsed.
6 His son Pramod Kumar, who accompanied him to PS, was allowed to take him to his house. On 09.01.2014 he went to hospital where MLC was prepared. His left ear drum was perforated due to the impact of assault. He has made complaints dated 11.01.2014, 14.01.2014 & 30.01.2014 to ACP & SHO but in vain. The complaint was also given to superior authorities but of no use. Hence, this complaint.
7 The revisionist has examined three witnesses including himself as CW1 during presummoning evidence.
8 Ld. Trial Court after hearing Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and perusing the record has returned the complaint on the ground that allegations come within the ambit of "Prevention of Corruption Act" and Court does not Surender Prasad Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. CR No. 417 of 2018 3/8 have jurisdiction to try such cases.
9 Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that no case under Prevention of Corruption Act is made out. She further submitted that the entire evidence on record discloses the commission of various offences like wrongful confinement, voluntarily causing grievous hurt and extortion. She further submitted that Ld. Trial Court has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence on record. She further submitted that delay in filing the revision petition was neither intentional nor deliberate.
10 Ld. Counsel for the respondents no. 2 & 3 have not turned up to address the arguments.
11 Heard and perused the record.
12 There is delay in filing the revision petition. The revisionist has allegedly the financial constrains. He was not allegedly keeping good health. He was looking after a job. The reasons for delay in filing the revision petition does not smack of malafide. The technicalities should not come in the way of advancement of justice. To my mind, reasons given by the revisionist come within the ambit of sufficient cause. Hence, the delay in filing the revision is neither intentional nor deliberate. The delay is condoned. Surender Prasad Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. CR No. 417 of 2018 4/8 13 The revisionist has examined three witnesses including himself as CW1.
14 CW1 Surender Parsad has corroborated the version of the complaint. He has placed reliance on documents. MarkA is the appointment letter of IPP Printing Press, MarkB is the appointment letter of Standard Cartons Pvt. Ltd., MarkC is the MLC of Safdarjung Hospital and other documents and reports, MarkD to G are the complaints given to ACP, Kalkaji, SHO, PS, Kalkaji, DCP and CP, Delhi, MarkJ & K is the various records from Safdarjung Hospital, Ex.CW1/A is the written complaint dated 11.01.2014 to ACP, Kalkaji and Ex.CW1/B is the written complaint dated 29.01.2014 to CP, Delhi.
15 CW2 Pramod stated that on 08.01.2014 his uncle Raja Ram Parsad came to his house in drunken condition and started abusing his father. His uncle called the police. SI Manoj Kumar, Ct. Premvir and two other came to his house and apprehended him and his father and took them to PS, OIA. They took them to 3rd floor where SI Manoj Kumar demanded bribe of Rs. 10,000/ from his father who refused to pay the same. SI Manoj assaulted his father with the help of plastic pipe and fists. There was another Constable in the room. SI Manoj gave a fist blow under the ears of his father from which Surender Prasad Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. CR No. 417 of 2018 5/8 blood oozed out. His father become unconscious. SI Manoj told him to take his father. On the next morning, he took his father to ESI Hospital for treatment. He was referred to Safdarjung Hospital where his father was medically treated.
16 CW3 Dr. Shanti, ENT Specialist, ESI Hospital stated that on 09.01.2014 Surender Parsad has come for the medical examination who was examined by Dr. Mohd. Ozair and thereafter brought before him. The patient has given the history of assault. He has informed by Senior Resident that patient was assaulted by police officials. He has examined the patient who has traumatic perforation of left tynpanic membrane and margin were fresh. Puretone Audiometry was conducted which shows right mild conductive hearing loss and left moderate mix hearing loss. The injury was fresh in nature. The OPD Ticket is Ex.CW3/1 bearing his signature at pointA which also bears the signature of Dr. Mohd. Ozair at pointB. The audiogram form dated 09.01.2014 is Ex.CW3/2 bearing the signature of Prashant Kumar, Technician at pointA. The patient has come for follow up treatment. On 16.01.2014 he has examined him for traumatic perforation. On 20.01.2014 the patient has again come for examination. He has found three clots and no sign of healing of tympanic membrane. The patient was advised tympano Surender Prasad Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. CR No. 417 of 2018 6/8 plasty. The endorsement was made at pointD. Ex.CW3/3 is the list of check in for 09.01.2014 of the hospital duly verified by Deputy MS of the hospital. The injury is grievous in nature.
17 The evidence led by the revisionist shows that his uncle Raja Ram came in a drunken condition to his house and started abusing and fighting with him. He has made a call to the police upon which respondent no. 1 and two police officials came at the spot and took him to the PS where he was kept at 3rd Floor. He was beaten as a result he has sustained injuries on the left ear. The respondent no. 1 was allegedly demanding Rs. 10,000/ for his release. The blood oozed out from the injuries as a result CW2 brought him from PS to the house. He was got medically examined. The medical record is Ex.CW3/1 to CW3/3. The testimony of CW3 shows that CW1 has sustained grievous injuries.
18 Ld. Trial Court has swayed by the fact that a sum of Rs.10,000/ was demanded by respondent no. 1 so the case comes within the ambit of Prevention of Corruption Act.
19 Ld. Trial Court has not seen and appreciated the entire evidence led by the revisionist. There is no evidence that respondent no. 1 has allegedly demanded Rs.10,000/ from the father of the revisionist for the Surender Prasad Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. CR No. 417 of 2018 7/8 registration of any case. There are clear cut alleged allegations of the various offences allegedly committed the respondent no. 1 and others under IPC. The evidence to this effect is not considered in Ld. Trial Court. 20 I find that there is an infirmity in the order dated 07.12.2017 passed by Ld. Trial Court.
21 The order dated 07.12.2017 is set aside. The case is remanded back to Ld. Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. 22 Revisionist is directed to appear before Ld. Trial Court on 06.05.2019.
23 TCR alongwith copy of this order be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court.
24 Revision file be consigned to record room.
announced in the
open court on
30th April, 2019 (SURESH KUMAR GUPTA)
Add. Sessions Judge04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS)
South East, New Delhi
Surender Prasad Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. CR No. 417 of 2018 8/8