Delhi District Court
Sh. Vikrant vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi) on 16 February, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; FTC : E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
Crl. (R) No. 64/17
New Crl. (R)No. 215/2017
1. Sh. Vikrant
S/o. Sh. Bal Kishan
Through his brother/next friend/guardian
Sh. Mukesh Kumar
S/o. Sh. Bal Kishan
Both R/o. 1/2014, Gali No.24,
Ram Nagar, Modern Shahdara,
Delhi110032.
............ Revisionist
Versus
1. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)
............ Respondent
ORDER
1. This revision petition is preferred by revisionist u/s. 397 Cr.P.C through his next friend/guardian against the orders dt. 20.09.2017 & 01.11.2017 passed by Sh. Pankaj Arora, Ld. MM, Shahdara, whereby Ld. Trial Court ordered for the medical examination of revisionist and also issued NBWs against him. ____________________________________________________________________ CR No.215/2017 Page 1 of 5 Vikrant Vs. The State
2. Arguments have been advanced by Sh. Praveen Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for revisionist as also by Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State. On an application as filed on behalf of revisionist for providing one more opportunity to address the arguments, liberty was granted to file written submissions, however, same have not been filed.
3. Ld. Counsel for revisionist argued that during trial revisionist filed a petition u/s. 328/329/330 Cr.P.C for dropping of the proceedings against him as revisionist is suffering from mental disease and a certificate in this regard has already been issued by the hospital. Ld. Counsel for revisionist further argued that as revisionist was unfit to stand trial, Ld. MM committed an error while dismissing the exemption application of the revisionist.
4. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order dt. 20.09.2017 as Ld. Trial Court after recording the statement of Sh. N.G.Desai, Director and Chairman of IHBAS, directed him to constitute another board for determining the fitness of revisionist to stand trial. It has been further argued that despite direction passed by the court, the family members of the ____________________________________________________________________ CR No.215/2017 Page 2 of 5 Vikrant Vs. The State revisionist did not cooperate with the doctors at IHBAS and it appeared to Ld. Trial Court that revisionist was deliberately not getting himself examined.
5. Impugned orders have been assailed on the grounds that revisionist is mentally retarded; that dismissal of exemption application of revisionist is against the principle of natural justice; that order dt. 01.11.2017 has caused a great injustice to the revisionist; that impugned order is against the fundamental rights of the revisionist; that revisionist is suffering from various mental disease since long back and he was under regular treatment; that in case FIR No. 63/2007, a Medical Board of IHBAS declared the revisionist unfit for trial; that Ld. MM felt appropriate to get the revisionist medically examined but also issued NBWs against him and that Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the documents already placed on judicial record regarding illness of the revisionist.
6. The main plea of Ld. Counsel for revisionist is that Ld. Trial Court although directed to constitute another board for examining the revisionist for determining whether he is fit to stand trial but on the other hand also issued NBWs against him. In this regard perusal of true attested copies as filed by ____________________________________________________________________ CR No.215/2017 Page 3 of 5 Vikrant Vs. The State revisionist on record shows that Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dt. 20.09.2017 after examining Dr. N.G.Desai, Director and Chairman of IHBAS, issued directions for medical examination of revisionist and further the family members of the revisionist were directed not to interfere in the examination process in any manner. Statement of Dr. N.G.Desai recorded by Ld. Trial Court also shows that revisionist was examined for more than 10 times pursuant to previous order issued by Ld. Trial Court on 14.03.2017 and the revisionist was found uncooperative. As the revisionist has taken a plea before Ld. Trial Court that he was mentally unfit to stand trial, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order dt. 20.09.2017, whereby Ld. Trial Court after examining Dr. N.G.Desai, Director and Chairman of IHBAS, directed to constitute another board for medically examining the revisionist.
7. As far as impugned order dt. 01.11.2017 is concerned, Ld. Trial Court observed that despite direction passed by the court for medical examination of revisionist at IHBAS, he deliberately avoided for getting himself examined. Further, the exemption application was also dismissed on the ground that it was not supported with any medical certificate regarding illness of the revisionist as claimed therein.
____________________________________________________________________ CR No.215/2017 Page 4 of 5 Vikrant Vs. The State Furthermore impugned order dt. 01.11.2017 has become infructous as Ld. Trial Court directed to issue the NBWs for 13.11.2017.
8. In view of above, I do not find any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court. Revision file be consigned to record room. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Announced in the open court Date: 2018.02.16 16:46:10 +0530 on 16.02.2018 (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra) ASJ/FTC/ECOURT Shahdara/KKD/Delhi ____________________________________________________________________ CR No.215/2017 Page 5 of 5 Vikrant Vs. The State