Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shiv Bux And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan Through P.P on 11 January, 2017
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B.Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 221 / 2010
1. Shiv Bux son of Shri Durga Ram by caste Jat, resident of
Udansari, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar at present SDO, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sikar.
2. Sanjiwan Kumar son of Shri Rajinder Pal, resident of Panchkula
(Haryana) at present General Manager, BSNL, Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through P.P.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Brahma Nand Sandu with
Mr. Parth Sartha Sandhu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Yadav, PP for the State.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
11/01/2017
1. The petitioners have preferred this Criminal Misc.
Petition aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2009 passed by
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Laxmangarh (Sikar) whereby the
trial court took cognizance for the offence under Section 175 IPC.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the
search warrant under Section 93 Cr.P.C. could be issued only by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate and therefore, vide order dated
21.10.2009, the application moved by the SHO for issuance of
search warrant was rejected by Judicial Magistrate concerned.
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-221/2010]
3. It is further contended by counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioners have submitted documents before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and therefore, they have complied with the requisition made by the SHO.
4. I have considered the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner.
5. The court in the impugned order has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 175 of IPC, as the petitioners have not supplied the relevant record to the SHO concerned when a request was made for the same.
6. The defence of counsel for the petitioner that sub clause (3) of Section 91 does not apply to the Telegraphic Authorities which is part of BSNL now, do not have any force because Section 91 specifically provides that whenever any Officer Incharge of a police station for the purpose of investigation, inquiry or trial issues a summon for producing document, it is the duty of the person concerned to supply the same. Section 175 of IPC makes omitting production of document to the public servant by persons legally bound to produce an offence, production of the document after taking of cognizance would therefore, not help the petitioner.
7. Taking note of the fact that the punishment provided under Section 175 of IPC is merely punishment of one month or fine of rupees five hundred or both. The trial court would take into consideration the fact of depositing of the relevant document before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
8. Considering the fact that the order taking cognizance (3 of 3) [CRLMP-221/2010] was justified, I do not find any force in this criminal misc. petition and the same is dismissed.
9. Consequently, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI)J. zeeshan/