Delhi District Court
State vs . Madan Lal on 13 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN, MM06, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI State Vs. Madan Lal FIR No : 231/12 U/s : 279/337 IPC & 29/177, 101/177, 16.1/177 M.V. Act PS : Vasant Vihar JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 255/02/13
b) Unique Case ID No. : 02403R0089952012
c) The date of commission of the
offence : 28.07.2012
d) Name of the complainant : Anuj Kumar, S/o Sh. Jagdish
e) Name, parentage & address
of accused : Madan Lal, S/o Sh. Badri Prasad,
R/o Village & PO Ahroli, Govind
Sahab, PS Alapur, District
Ambedkar Nagar, U.P.
f) Offences complained of : 279/337 IPC, 29/177, 101/177,
16.1/177 M.V. Act
g) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final Judgment : Acquitted
i) Date of institution of case : 26.09.2012
j) Date of final arguments : 13.01.2016
k) Date of Judgment : 13.01.2016
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. In the present case chargesheet was filed by the State under Sections 279/337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter mentioned as 'IPC') and FIR No.231/12 State vs. Madan Lal Page no. 1 of 6 Sections 29/177, 101/177, 16.1/177 of The Motors Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter mentioned as 'MV Act') against the accused Madan Lal on 26.09.2012. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.07.2012, at about 09:45 AM, at Outer Ring Road towards Munirka near Jia Sarai Bus Stand New Delhi, the accused was driving a Tata Tempo bearing registration no.HR38Q7743 in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and hit against a TSR bearing registration no.DL1RL3471 and caused simple injuries on the person of Anuj Kumar. Further, the case of prosecution is that the accused was carrying long load on the aforesaid vehicle, opened the Dalla and failed to give any indicator in contravention to provisions of MV Act.
2. On the basis of aforesaid chargesheet, this court took cognizance of the offences in question against the accused. Upon appearance of the accused, the documents were supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter mentioned as 'Cr.P.C.'). Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. qua offences under Section 279/337 IPC, 29/177, 101/177 and 16.1/177 M.V. Act was served upon the accused by Ld. Predecessor court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 13.02.2013. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. PW1 is HC Sudhir Singh, who deposed that on 28.07.2012, he registered FIR bearing no.231/12 as Ex.PW1/A (OSR) and proved endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that after FIR No.231/12 State vs. Madan Lal Page no. 2 of 6 registration of FIR, he had handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to HC Rajbir Singh.
4. The prosecution could not examine PW/complainant Anuj Kumar despite repeated opportunities given by the court. Bailable Warrants issued against PW/complainant Anuj Kumar through DCP concerned also received back unexecuted. Accordingly, PW/complainant was dropped from the list of witnesses vide detailed order on 13.01.2016. Thereafter, it was argued on behalf of accused that in the absence of testimony of PW/ complainant Anuj Kumar, no fruitful purpose would be served by examining other witnesses whose testimonies are merely formal in nature. The submissions made on behalf of the accused were affirmed by Ld. APP for State.
5. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka AIR 2002 SC 1856, the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
"...........22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression........ Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without FIR No.231/12 State vs. Madan Lal Page no. 3 of 6 pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts.........."
6. In Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while relying upon the aforesaid judgment, observed:
"..............16. Notwithstanding elaborate enunciation of Article 21 of the Constitution in Abdul Rehman Antulay (supra), and rejection of the fervent plea of proponents of right to speedy trial for laying down timelimits as bar beyond which a criminal trial shall not proceed pronouncements of this Court in "Common Cause" A Registered Society Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.,"Common Cause", Raj Deo Sharma Vs.State of Bihar and Raj Deo Sharma II Vs. State of Bihar gave rise to some confusion on the question whether an outer time limit for conclusion of criminal proceedings could be prescribed whereafter the trial court would be obliged to terminate the proceedings and necessarily acquit or discharge the accused. The confusion on the issue was set at rest by a sevenJudge Bench of this court in P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka.
Speaking for the majority, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as his Lordship then was) while affirming that the dictum in A.R. Antulay's case (supra) is correct and still holds the field and the propositions emerging from Article 21 of the Constitution and expounding the right to speedy trial laid down as guidelines in the said case adequately take care of right to speedy trial, it was held that guidelines laid down in the A.R. Antulay's case (supra) are not exhaustive but only illustrative. They are not FIR No.231/12 State vs. Madan Lal Page no. 4 of 6 intended to operate as hard and fast rules or to be applied like a straitjacket formula. Their applicability would depend on the factsituation of each case as it is difficult to foresee all situations and no generalization can be made. It has also been held that it is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. Nonetheless, the courts should exercise their available powers such as those under Sections 309, 311 and 258 of CrPC to the right to speedy trial. In appropriate cases, jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be invoked seeking appropriate relief or suitable directions. The outer limits or power of limitation expounded in the aforenoted judgments were held to be not in consonance with the legislative intent..............."
7. In order to bring home guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 279/337 IPC & 29/177, 101/177, 16.1/177 M.V. Act, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused was driving his Tata Tempo bearing registration no.HR38Q7743 in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving so he hit against TSR bearing registration no.DL1RL3471 and caused simple injuries on the person of Anuj Kumar. Further, prosecution was required to prove that the accused carried long load on the aforesaid vehicle, opened the Dalla and failed to give any indicator in contravention of provisions of MV Act. In the absence of testimony of PW/complainant Anuj Kumar and other eyewitness to the alleged incident, the identity of accused and essential ingredients of the offences in question pertaining to 'rashness' and FIR No.231/12 State vs. Madan Lal Page no. 5 of 6 'negligence' could not be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. This is thus, the apt case for exercise of power under Section 258 Cr.P.C. to cut short the trial which would otherwise result in wastage of judicial time and harassment to the accused.
8. In the light of aforementioned discussion and cited judgments, the court while protecting the right of accused to have speedy justice, invokes the power conferred upon it under Section 258 Cr.P.C. to stop the proceedings against accused Madan Lal, S/o Sh. Badri Prasad qua offences under Section 279/337 IPC & 29/177, 101/177, 16.1/177 M.V. Act in the present summons police case and hereby releases the accused under aforementioned sections, which shall have the effect of acquittal.
Personal bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/ furnished in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. by the accused. The same is duly accepted for six months from today.
Announced in the open Court (Akash Jain)
on 13.01.2016 Metropolitan Magistrate06,
Patiala House Court,
New Delhi.
FIR No.231/12 State vs. Madan Lal Page no. 6 of 6