Delhi District Court
Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam on 24 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. A. K. KUHAR, ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE;NDPS
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET
Criminal Revision No. 8170/2016
DLST010010122016
Ashok Sikka ..........Revisionist
s/o late Sh. Manohar Lal Sikka
r/o A662, Sushant Lok PhaseI,
Gurgaon - 122001, Haryana
versus
A. K. Nigam ..........Respondent no. 1
IAS Retired r/o House No. K10, Model Town, No. 2, Delhi 110009 Naresh Kumar (IAS) ..........Respondent no. 2 Former Addl. Commissioner (Engineer), MCD, Now Chairman NDMC Palika Kendra, Parliament Street, New Delhi S. K. Jha ..........Respondent no. 3 (Former D. C. MCD South Zone, Green Park) C/o Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT, Delhi 110002 Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 1 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016 A. K. Sharma ..........Respondent no. 4 (Former Chief Law Officer) through Commissioner, SDMC Civil Center, Minto Road, New Delhi Manish Rastoagi ..........Respondent no. 5 Former Superintendent Engineer, MCD through Commissioner, SDMC Civil Center, Minto Road, New Delhi R. P. Meena ..........Respondent no. 6 Former Executive Engineer, through Commissioner, SDMC, Civil Center, Minto Road, New Delhi Anil Kumar ..........Respondent no. 7 Former Assistant Engineer (Building) through Commissioner, SDMC, Civil Center, Minto Road, New Delhi Sunil Dawar ..........Respondent no. 8 Former Assistant Engineer (Building) through Commissioner, SDMC, Civil Center, Minto Road, New Delhi J. S. Yadav ..........Respondent no. 9 Former Executive Engineer, (MCD) through Commissioner, SDMC, Civil Center, Minto Road, New Delhi Sanjay Yadav ..........Respondent no. 10 Former Executive Engineer, (MCD) through Commissioner, SDMC, Civil Center, Minto Road, New Delhi Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 2 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016 Date of institution : 26th February 2016 Arguments concluded on : 24th October 2016 Order announced on : 24th November 2016 O R D E R
1. By this Order, I shall dispose of Criminal Revision Petition which has been filed by the revisionist, challenging the impugned order dated 25.01.2016 whereby Sh. Ankit Singhla, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate03 has dismissed the criminal complaint of the revisionist u/s 203 Cr. PC except for the offence u/s 219 IPC.
2. Since the complaint has been dismissed u/s 203 Cr. PC, therefore, Notice was issued to all the respondents, who were arrayed as proposed accused in the Criminal Complaint tilted as "Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam and others" (CC No. 21/1/13). Notice was served to all the respondents and respondentsA. K. Nigam (R1), Naresh Kumar (R2), S. K. Jha (R3), A. K. Sharma (R4), Manish Rastogi (R5), R. P. Meena (R
6), Anil Kumar (R7), Sunil Dawar (R8), J. S. Yadav (R9) and Sanjay Yadav (R10) marked their appearance through their respective counsels. Manish Rastogi (R8) appeared in person. Trial Court Record was summoned for perusal.
Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 3 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016
3. I have heard arguments advanced by Sh. S. P. Ahluwalia with Sh. Avijit Singh Learned counsels for revisionist and Sh. Rajiv Bhardwaj, Sh. Ajay Arora and Sh. S. K. Alok Learned counsels for respondents and perused the record carefully.
4. Before considering the submissions of Learned counsel for revisionist and Learned counsels for respondents, factual background in which the Criminal complaint was filed by the revisionist/complainant, may be considered.
5. The revisionist filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr. PC alleging the commission of offences punishable u/s 217, 218, 219, 341, 342, 379, 380,384, 427, 448, 452 and 120B IPC. It is stated in the complaint that House No. B5, Western Avenue, Sainik Farms, New Delhi110062 was constructed by father of revisionist/complainant. A demolition action was taken against this property pursuant to the order passed in Writ Petition No. 6734/2000 titled as "Rajiv Malhotra vs Union of India & ors." In the said demolition action, the front canopy and its beneath structure was demolished by the MCD in December 2000. The demolished portion was reconstructed by the revisionist/complainant for safety and security reasons. The fact of reconstruction in similarly placed building where demolition action was taken, was informed to Hon'ble High Court in the Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 4 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016 Writ Petition No. 6734/2000 by the MCD on 09.05.2007 and MCD assured Hon'ble High Court that action with regard to reconstructed portion of 21 properties, in which the demolition action was taken, would be taken again and would be completed within three weeks.
6. The property of revisionist was therefore demolished on 23.05.2007. It is the case of the complainant/revisionist that his property was protected by Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006, which was passed by the Parliament. By virtue of this Act, the enforceability of punitive action, under the relevant provision of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957, was put in abeyance till formulation and implementation of policy for regularization of unauthorized colonies by the Government.
7. The revisionist/complainant alleged that the property in question was in existence prior to the year 2000, therefore, by virtue of the Act of 2006, it was protected from any demolition even under any Court order, therefore, even the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 09.05.2007 was not enforceable in view of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006.
8. Further allegation of revisionist/complainant is that on 20.05.2007, R. P. Meena (R6), Anil Kumar (R7) and Sunil Dawar (R8) came to his house and demanded extortion money of Rs five lacs and Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 5 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016 threatened him that if the amount is not paid, they will demolish the house in entirety. The revisionist/complainant did not pay the amount and all the arrayed accused, enlisted the complainant's house for complete demolition in the meeting held on 22.05.2007 in the Office of Commissioner of MCD for taking action against 21 properties pursuant to the order dated 09.05.2007 passed by Delhi High Court. It was alleged that all the arrayed accused entered into a criminal conspiracy for demolition of the house of the complainant and even the Chief Law Officer endorsed the idea of complete demolition without making any objection that property was protected by the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act 2006.
9. Thus, the revisionist/complainant alleged in the complaint that all the accused committed the offences punishable u/s 217, 218, 219, 341, 342, 379, 380,384, 427, 448, 452 and 120B IPC.
10. It is further alleged that J. S. Yadav (R9) had filed his affidavit in the Delhi High Court on 17.04.2012 in Writ Petition No. 1558/2011wherein he falsely stated that the property in question was not protected under the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act 2006, and thereby he committed the offence punishable u/s 219 IPC.
Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 6 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016
11. It is further stated in the complaint that MCD was not authorized to demolish the house of the complainant, pursuant to the order dated 09.05.2007 of Hon'ble High Court and if, in any case, the demolition was to take place, only the reconstructed portion of the front canopy and portion beneath could have been demolished. The complainant/revisionist referred to the Report of the Committee of the Court Commissioners dated 23.01.2001, which was constituted by Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 6734/2000, wherein it is stated that only the front canopy and structure beneath of the house B5 have been demolished. It is further submitted that it has also come in the affidavit of S. K. Jha, Deputy Commissioner of South, MCD (R3) in Writ Petition No. 6734/2000 in February 2007 that property is constructed at ground floor and first floor and is an old occupied property. It was submitted in the complaint that despite the fact that property was protected under the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006 Act and MCD issued Notices u/s 343,344,345 of DMC Act dated 22.02.2007, which were duly replied and the order was reserved on 16.04.2007. However, vide the office note of MCD dated 22.05.2007, the Notice proceedings u/s 343, 344 and 345 of DMC Act were arbitrarily waived off and demolition action was initiated against the property of the complainant. This waiver of Notice is in Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 7 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016 violation of the provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
12. It is alleged that all the arrayed proposed accused have abused their position for extortion of money and abused the process of law. It is further submitted that MCD officials were themselves allowing the fresh construction in the area of Sainik Farm and MCD officilas have taken selective action against complainant/revisionist while some other properties, which were listed for complete demolition have not been touched.
13. In the background of these facts the Criminal complaint was filed. The application moved u/s 156 (3) Cr. PC, alongwith complaint was dismissed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 28.11.2013. Thereafter, the complainant has examined seven witnesses (CW1 to CW7) and after hearing arguments, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, vide the impugned order, has dismissed the complaint, except for the offence punishable u/s 219 IPC, for which he gave direction to return the complaint u/s 201 Cr. PC.
14. In response to the Notice, issued to all the respondents, Learned counsels for respondents appeared and made submissions. It was submitted that the demolition action was taken as per the direction of Hon'ble High Court. It was submitted that the property of the revisionist Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 8 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016 was liable for demolition in the year 2000, pursuant to the direction of Hon'ble High Court and it was partially demolished as well. However, the revisionist/complainant had reconstructed the building. The matter when came up before Hon'ble High Court, after Inspection Report submitted by the Committee, further directions were issued to take action against 21 properties which were identified, in which unauthorized construction and reconstruction have been raised. It was submitted that the revisionist/complainant has approached the Court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate after seven years of the incident without explaining the delay in approaching the Court. It was submitted that the revisionist/complainant had filed a Writ Petition in Hon'ble High Court, which has been Dismissed as Withdrawn. Apart from that a Civil Suit was also filed on the same grounds before Hon'ble High Court. It is further submitted that no offence is made out against the respondents and they all were public servant and action taken by the officials of MCD is in discharge of their public function and in compliance of the direction of Hon'ble High Court. It is submitted that no criminality can be attached to the actions of MCD officials arrayed as respondents herein. Not only that sanction u/s 197 Cr. PC has not been taken before filing the Criminal complaint against public servant, the respondents are also protected by Section 477 of the Delhi Municipal Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 9 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016 Corporation Act 1957. With regard to Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006, it was submitted that this Act came into force on 19.05.2006 and lapsed on 19.05.2007. Thus, there was no moratorium on action against unauthorized construction, till December 2007, when an Ordinance was promulgated.
15. It is submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate and Revision Petition therefore, should be dismissed.
16. On behalf of revisionist, who has also filed written submissions, it has been submitted that Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has wrongly held that cognizance of the offences u/s 166, 167, 341,342,427,448,217,218,379,417 and 384 IPC is barred by limitation. It was submitted that Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has held vide the impugned order that Section 219 IPC is made out, but since this offence has been committed beyond his territorial jurisdiction, he cannot take cognizance of the same. It was submitted that Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has ignored the Section 468 (3) Cr. PC, which interalia provides that the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment. It was submitted that Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 10 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016 punishment u/s 219 IPC is seven years, therefore, the limitation for three years will not be applicable and for the rest of the offences, therefore, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate should have taken the cognizance for other offences alongwith Section 219 IPC. It was also submitted that Learned Metropolitan Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance for the offence under Section 219 IPC as well.
17. It was submitted that Section 166 IPC is made out against the arrayed accused, who are public servants. It was submitted that the property of the revisionist was well protected by Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006 and by taking demolition action in violation of this Act of 2006, they have committed offence u/s 166 IPC. It was submitted that Section 427 IPC is also made out as wrongful destruction of the property of the revisionist has been caused by the act of the arrayed respondents. It is submitted that they also committed criminal trespass after preparing causing wrongful restraint. Revisionist also insisted that offence of forgery is made out against the arrayed respondents as they have filed the false report.
18. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and perused the Trial Court Record.
Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 11 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016
19. The grievance of the revisionist is that his property has been chosen for demolition by the MCD officials, while other properties similarly placed, were not even touched. The second basis of his grievance is that his property was protected by Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006, and despite the said Act, his property has been demolished. His further grievance is that to cover up these acts, MCD officials have placed false evidence/statements before Hon'ble High Court. His reference is to affidavit filed by J. S. Yadav (R9) in Writ Petition no. 1558/2011 which has been filed by the petitioner titled as "Ashok Sikka vs Commissioner of Delhi Police & others". His further grievance is that all the respondents, which included the then Commissioner of the MCD, conspired together to extort money from him and they held a meeting on 21.05.2007 wherein they had taken the decision to demolish his property. It is put forward by the revisionist that R. P. Meena (R6), Anil Kumar (R7) and Sunil Dawar (R8) had demanded money to spare his house from demolition and when it was not paid his property was demolished.
20. It is not disputed that property of the revisionist was unauthorized. It is situated in a posh colony of South Delhi in Sainik Farm, which itself is an unauthorized colony and has been subject matter of number of petitions before Hon'ble High Court where modalities are being Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 12 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016 find out to tackle menace of unauthorized construction in this colony. The documents which have been submitted on record would show that Hon'ble High Court in petition titled as "Rajiv Malhotra vs Union of India & ors" WP © 6734/2000 had passed order for demolition of certain properties. The property number B5, Sainik Vihar was one of those identified properties and a demolition action was taken against those properties. Subsequent to the demolition action, a Report was prepared by the Committee consisting of Rakesh Tikku, S. K. Jain, Rajesh Awasthi and Ashok Mahajan, which was constituted by Hon'ble High Court. This Committee submitted a Report on 23.01.2001, in terms of the order dated 12.01.2001 passed by Hon'ble High Court. As per this Report, the front canopy and the structure beneath in the property no. B5, Lane 14, Vinod Complex, Sainik Vihar was demolished. In the same Report, it is seen that property no. 11C, J12 and 501/12A were completely demolished. While number of other properties were partially demolished and the Committee observed that, houses which have been demolished, have been chosen selectively without any basis. This Report, thus, reflected that MCD officials were not consistent in their action and, why they have not demolished the property B5, Sainik Vihar completely like P. No 11C, J12 and 501/12A and simply done a cosmetic demolition by demolishing Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 13 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016 front canopy and structure beneath, nobody is explaining to the Court. Even the revisionist has not come out with the complete facts to explain in what circumstances, his property was only partially demolished when it was listed among the properties for demolition action.
21. In the same Writ Petition No. 6847/2000, an affidavit was submitted by S. K. Jha, Deputy Commissioner, South Zone (R3) in February 2007. In this affidavit, he gave the status of the properties which were listed for demolition, as per order dated 12.01.2001 of Hon'ble High Court. It is mentioned in this affidavit in Clause5 (XXIII) that this property constructed at ground floor and first floor and is an old occupied property and during inspection, no construction was seen in progress. Hon'ble High Court in same WP (C) 6734/200 passed an order on 09.05.2007 wherein, the submission of Sh. Sabharwal, Senior Advocate on behalf of MCD was recorded, wherein he stated that action is being taken against 21 properties where reconstruction has taken place, after demolition of the unauthorized construction and that appropriate action for demolition of such reconstruction shall be taken within three weeks. Hon'ble High Court took a serious view and directed the Municipal Commissioner to inform how unauthorized constructions have been raised, once the construction was demolished. The MCD was directed to file Action Taken Report Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 14 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016 (ATR) on the direction issued in the order. Pursuant to the order of Hon'ble High Court, a meeting took place with Commissioner, MCD on 21.05.2007. Office note dated 22.05.2007 record the decision taken in the meeting and it was decided to take action against 23 properties, some of which were to be demolished completely and the property of the revisionist was one of them. This office note was sent to Chief Law Officer, who had discussion with Sh. Anoop Bagai, Sh. Sanjiv Kumar Sabharwal, and Sh. Rajesh Awasthi, who advised to take action as per the order of Hon'ble High Court regarding demolition action to be taken qua the properties in question. Pursuant to this, the action has been taken. It is pertinent to note that action of the demolition action taken on 23.05.2007 qua the property in question was as per legal advise given by the Chief Law Officer, Standing Counsel of MCD and Sh. Rajesh Awasthi, Sh. Anoop Bagai, Amicus Curiae appointed by Hon'ble High Court in the Writ Petition. Office note of MCD dated 29.05.2007 mentioned about action which was taken against 21 unauthorized properties of Sainik Farm, against which the action was taken in the year 2001, which have been found reconstructed. It is mentioned in this note that demolition action was again taken qua the property no. J12, B5 (property of the revisionist), 501/12A, Sainik Farm and these properties have been Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 15 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016 completely demolished.
22. Thus, the demolition of property of the revisionist has taken place in the background of above facts. He has examined witnesses in his favour to show that revisionist has been residing in the property alongwith his family since 2000. However, this issue was not in dispute that the revisionist is residing in the house since 2000. The issue which Learned Metropolitan Magistrate had to consider was whether in the given facts and circumstances, in which the property of the revisionist was demolished, the respondents, who are MCD official, have committed any criminal act/offence. The revisionist claimed that they have committed various offences under the law and they should have been summoned by the Court.
23. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has declined to take cognizance of offences punishable u/s 342,167,166, 341,427,448,217,218,379,417 and 384 IPC on the ground that the complaint qua these offences has been filed after more than three years without seeking condonation of delay.
24. So far as the offence punishable u/s 193,199 and 200 IPC are concerned, he has rightly held that to take cognizance of these offences, a complaint from the concerned Court is required.
Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 16 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016
25. During arguments before Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, it was submitted that the offences punishable u/s 452,455,420,468 and 466 IPC are also made out. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has discussed and opined that the offences punishable u/s 420, 468, 455, 452 and 380 IPC are not made out. I have found no reason to disagree with the opinion expressed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The impugned order to that extent does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.
26. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has observed that affidavit, alleged to be containing false statement, was filed in the Hon'ble High Court by J. S. Yadav (R9), therefore, he has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. This observation of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate is confined to the commission of offence punishable u/s 219 IPC, which provides;
Section 219 IPC: "Whoever, being a public servant, corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
27. However, the perusal of Section 219 IPC shows that it is not attracted in the present case. It provides punishment for a public servant, Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 17 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016 who make or pronounce any 'report', 'order', 'verdict' or 'decision', which is contrary to law. This offence envisages making of a report, pronouncing of an order, verdict or a decision by a public servant in a judicial proceeding. Public servant can pass order, verdict or decision in a judicial proceeding when those proceedings are held by him. The word "making of report" has to be read as ejusdemgeneris with the words 'order', 'verdict' or 'decision'. So the preparation of report, order, verdict or decision, which is contrary to law should be in a judicial proceeding, which is held by the public servant.
28. In the present case, the revisionist has alleged that affidavit filed by J. S. Yadav (R9) before Hon'ble High Court contained wrong facts. Perusal of this affidavit shows that in paragraph 5, it is mentioned that MCD had decided to demolish portion, which has been reconstructed; in paragraph 8, it is stated that a uniform action was taken in support of 21 properties where demolition portion was reconstructed and in paragraph 9, it is stated that Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006 was not applicable in the case. This affidavit has been filed before Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) 1558/2011, which has been filed by the revisionist. Even if the facts stated in the affidavit are found to be not correct, still the Section 219 IPC will not be attracted because it is neither Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 18 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016 an order nor a verdict nor a decision or a report prepared by a public servant in judicial proceeding held by him. If these facts are stated to be false and mentioned in the affidavit intentionally, then Section 193 IPC could be attracted for which complaint of the concerned Court is required in term of Section 195 Cr. PC.
29. Now, the issue which Learned Metropolitan Magistrate had to decide whether offences, as alleged in the complaint, were made out or not. A Revisional Court will look for any illegality, irregularity in the order which is under challenge. Therefore, Revisional Court revisit facts and circumstances to ascertain whether there is any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order of lower Court. However, this will be possible only when an opinion has been given by the Magistrate on a particular issue. In the present case, Learned Metropolitan has declined to take cognizance in number of offences only on the ground that the cognizance of those offences is barred by limitation and delay is not explained.
30. The legality of this part of the order has to be seen. The provisions u/s 468 Cr. PC put a bar on taking cognizance of the offences, after the expiry of the period of limitation. The direction in u/s 468 Cr. PC are mandatory and it specifically says that no Court "shall" take cognizance of an offence. Section 473 Cr. PC provides that Court may Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 19 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016 take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of period of limitation, if the "delay has been properly explained" or that "it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice". Therefore, there are two grounds for condonation of delay. Firstly, when the delay has been explained and secondly, when the Court is of the view that it is necessary to condone the delay in the interest of justice. The use of the disjunctive word "or" in Section 473 Cr. PC would convey that both these grounds are mutually exclusive. The first ground envisage a prayer by complainant or State for condonation of delay by showing sufficient cause for delay to the satisfaction of the Court. The second part vest a jurisdiction and discretion in the Court to condone the delay, if the Court is satisfied, that it is necessary to condone delay in interest of justice. So declining to take cognizance on ground of limitation without recording satisfaction that it was not fit case for condonation of delay, is not proper. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Vanka Radhamanohari vs Vanka Venkata Reddy (1993) 3 SCC 4 that;
"In view of Section 473 Cr. PC, a Court can take cognizance of an offence not only when it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained, but even in Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 20 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016 absence of proper explanation if the Court is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice"
31. Moreover, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the impugned order has simply declined to take cognizance of certain offences but his order is silent whether in his opinion these offences are made out or not. The Revisional Court cannot substitute its opinion with that of Magistrate but there has to be "finding" given by the Magistrate based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the legality, correctness or propriety of which can be seen by the Revisional Court. Impugned order is completely silent whether the offences for which the cognizance was declined being barred by limitation were made out or not. Moreover, the respondents arrayed as accused are all "public servant". The impugned order is also silent about issue of Sanction under Section 197 Cr. PC.
32. Therefore, I consider it in the interest of justice and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to remand the case back to Learned Metropolitan Magistrate03 to give his finding with regard to the offences for which he has declined to take cognizance for want of limitation in the same manner as he has given his opinion with regard to other offences which were invoked by the complainant. It is not out of Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 21 of 22 CR No. 8170 of 2016 place to mention that law of limitation simply bars the remedy and does not extinguish the right. Therefore, it was necessary for Learned Metropolitan Magistrate to give a finding whether an offences qua which cognizance has been declined in the present case, were made out or not.
33. With these observations, present Revision Petition stands allowed to the extent that Learned Metropolitan Magistrate03, District South, Saket will hear the submissions of Learned counsel for the revisionist afresh and pass speaking order with regard to the offences u/s 342,167,166,341,427,448,217,218,379,417 & 384 IPC qua which he had declined to take cognizance for being barred by limitation and also consider whether Section 197 Cr. PC is attracted in the case or not.
34. Trial Court Record be sent back to the Trial Court concerned alongwith copy of this order for perusal and compliance for 02.12.2016. The revisionist shall appear before the concerned Court.
35. Revision file be consigned to record room, after compliance of all other necessary formalities.
(announced in the (Ajay Kumar Kuhar)
open Court on ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS)
24th November 2016) South District: Saket
Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors. Page no. 22 of 22
CR No. 8170 of 2016