Delhi District Court
Rajesh Kumar Chawla vs The State. on 22 January, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE ; ROHINI COURTS ; DELHI
Criminal. Revision No. 113/06.
RAJESH KUMAR CHAWLA Vs The State.
Court Concerned: Sh. Gurvinder Pal Singh
learned ACMM, Rohini Courts,Delhi.
ORDER
1. Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.9.2006 whereby charge has been framed against the revisionist for offences punishable under section 283 and 431 IPC.
Sh. A.S. Datir learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the charge under section 431 IPC is not made out. The ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under section 431 IPC conceive of a grave mischief which renders a public road or navigal river impassable. It is further submitted that this would refer to a situation where a public road damaged or a trench is dug. In the present case no such act is attributed to the revisionist. Moreover, the road had been dug by the officials of MTNL and had been left un- 2 repaired. It is further submitted that even at the stage of framing of charge court must determine whether the material on record is such on the basis of which a conviction can be ordered. Reliance has been placed on Pusp Kumar Rai vs. State of Sikkim Cr.L.J. 1379.
2. Learned APP has opposed the revision petition and submitted that the revisionist had completely blocked the pathway and had also hung his signboard by damaging the road. Pathway had been made totally impassable. Reference had been made to photographs which had been taken at the spot and made a part of the chargesheet.
3. I have heard learned counsels and perused the trial court record. A perusal of the photographs placed on record by prosecution reveals that the revisionist had placed a cloth hanger on one side of his shop and on the other side he had placed a mannequin. Path way had been blocked from the both sides; making it impassable, for the users to travel on the same. A signboard of the shop of the revisionist 'Unique Collection' is also seen affixed. It is not disputed by the revisionist that the road had been dug; Though he attributes the same to the MTNL. On this aspect admission by 3 the revisionist has been made in ground of the revision petition. This is a defence of the revisionist, which will be appreciated during the trial, whether the road had been dug or damaged by the revisionist or by the officials of the MTNL.
Irrespective of the admission by the revisionist, the photographs do not leave anything for imagination. Pathway has been completely blocked from both sides, leaving no passage for the users. I am, therefore, of the opinion, that the charge under section 431 IPC is made out.
4. For the reasons stated above I find no merits in the revision petition. The same is dismissed and the order dated 5.9.2006 passed by the learned ACMM is upheld. TCR be sent back to the trial court concerned alongwith a copy of order. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court today (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL ) i. e. 22.1.2007. ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE.
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI.