Madhya Pradesh High Court
Omprakash vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation Thr on 2 May, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MP 410
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-10598-2018
(OMPRAKASH vs. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.)
Gwalior, Dated :02.05.2018
Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for
the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Assistant Solicitor
General for the respondent/CBI.
Challenge is to an order dated 16/02/2018 passed by the Special Judge (VYAPAM) dismissing petitioner's Criminal Revision filed against the order dated 19.12.2017; whereby, the Special Magistrate, Central Bureau of Investigation, rejected petitioner's application under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The petitioner is being tried for an offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 3/4 Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examination Act, 1934.
The allegations are that, during the Physical Proficiency Test of Police Constable Recruitment Test, 2013, an impersonator was caught while appearing in place of the original candidate 2 Devendra Kumar. The impersonator introduced himself as Dharmendra Kumar S/o Sajjan Singh and admitted that he impersonated for his brother Devendra Kumar. Said Dharmendra was granted bail on 19.03.2014. After obtaining bail, the said Dharmendra absconded and remained untraced.
During investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation, it was revealed that no person by the name of Dharmendra Kumar, S/o Sajjan Singh resident of Village Bishanpura Surajgarh, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan exists. Said Sajjan Singh disclosed that he has only one son Devendra Kumar, accused candidate in case.
On 08/09/2017, the accused Omprakash S/o Shri Mange Ram was arrested with the help of photograph available on the judicial remand form and the jail record of Dharmendra Kumar. On 22.09.2017, the identification proceedings under Section 54-A of Cr.P.C. of arrested accused Omprakash was conducted by Tahsildar Shri B.S. Kushwah in course of which Shri Amar Singh Sub- Inspector of Madhya Pradesh Police, who earlier 3 arrested Omprakash as Dharmendra Kumar identified arrested accused Omprakash.
These facts led the Special Magistrate, Central Bureau of Investigation reject petitioner's application under Section 167(2) of the Act which envisages that the Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction. Proviso (a) to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 further stipulates that the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the 4 accused person in custody under said proviso for a total period of exceeding ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years.
The Special Magistrate found that the petitioner is not entitle for any benefit under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., as being the same person, he had misued the liberty.
The Revisional Court affirmed the order, holding that:
"bl izdkj vfHkys[k ij ekStwn ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls ;g LFkkfir gksrk gS fd iqujh{k.kdrkZ ds fo:} iwoZ esa /kesZUnz iq= lTtuflag ds :i esa vfHk;ksx i= izLrqr gks pqdk Fkk vkSj dsUnzh; vuqla/kku C;wjks }kjk ek= vfxze vuqla/kku fd;k tk jgk gSA ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd iqujh{k.kdrkZ iwoZ esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ls tekur izkIr fd;k Fkk vkSj mlds vuqifLFkr gks tkus ls mlds fo:} mikiZ.k U;k;ky; }kjk fxjQ~rkjh okjaV tkjh fd;k x;kA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa iqujh{k.kdrkZ ds ekeys dh vksj naM izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 167 mi/kkjk 02 ds mica/k vkdf"kZr ugha gksrs gSa vkSj og blds rgr tekur izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA QyLo:i mikiZ.k U;k;ky; }kjk mlds vkosnu dks fujLr fd, tkus esa dksbZ =qfV ugha dh x;h gS] blls vkyksP; vkns'k fnukad 19-12-2017 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gS vkSj iqujh{k.kdrkZ dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk lkjghu gksus ls fujLr dh tkrh gSA"
When the impugned orders are tested on the anvil of the given facts on record, it leaves no iota 5 of doubt that Omprakash, i.e. present petitioner, is the same who earlier representated as Dharmendra, and being the same person who was arrested, released on bail then absoconded and now be arrested in not benefitted by the provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C.
In view whereof, the impugned orders cannot be faulted with.
Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Ashok Kumar Joshi)
Judge Judge
pwn*
Digitally signed by
PAWAN KUMAR
Date: 2018.05.03
18:17:28 +05'30'