Delhi District Court
State vs Shahrukh on 20 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH.RAMESH KUMAR,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CR No. 61/21
CIS No. DLNE01-004287-2021
In the matter of:
State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through SI Naveen Kumar
PS Khajuri Khas ............ Revisionist
Versus
Shahrukh
s/o Islam
R/o A-Block, Gali no.5,
Sri Ram Colony,
Khajuri Khas, Delhi-110053 .......Respondent
Date of institution of case: 18.12.2021
Date of reserving the case for order: 20.12.2021
Date of passing of order: 20.12.2021
CR No.61/21 STATE VS. SHAHRUKH Page 1/5
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, UNDER SECTION 397/399 READ
WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C, AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER,
DATED 01.11.2021, PASSED BY THE COURT OF SH.ARUN
KUMAR GARG,LD.CMM, (NORTH-EAST) DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI.
JUDGMENT:
1. The present revision petition is preferred by State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, through SI Naveen Kumar, PS Khajuri Khas (hereinafter referred to as revisionist), against the impugned order, dated 01.11.2021, passed by the court of Sh. Arun Kumar Garg, ld. CMM, NorthEast District, Karkardooma Court Complex, Delhi, whereby, the ld.Trial Court, imposed cost of Rs.5000/, to be deposited by the State in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, as adjournment was sought on behalf of the State for advancing arguments on charge.
2. It is stated, in the revision petition, that, on the date of passing of the impugned order, ld. SPP had sought adjournment, in the matter, for making certain clarifications from the investigating agency, regarding some date recorded in the statement of witnesses, namely, Ct. Bhupender and ASI Brahamdutt. However, while allowing the adjournment request, the ld. Trial Court imposed cost of Rs.5000/, to be deposited by the State, in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. It is further stated that the impugned order is not in consonance with the basic provisions of law. It is further stated that the ld. Trial Court, ought to have used the discretionary power CR No.61/21 STATE VS. SHAHRUKH Page 2/5 judiciously as, request for adjournment, was made on justifiable and bonafide ground.
3. It is stated, in the grounds of revision petition, that the impugned order, is unjustified and is against the settled principles of law laid down by the higher courts. It is stated that the direction, regarding imposition of cost of Rs.5000/, to be deposited by the State, in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, is against the settled principle of law, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, through its various pronoucements. Thus, it is prayed that the revision petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned order, dated 01.11.2021.
4. I have heard Sh. Nitin Rai Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor for the revisionist and carefully perused the record file and have gone through the material placed on record.
5. The relevant portion of the impugned order, dated 01.11.2021, is reproduced herein below as under.
" .....On perusal of the statement of Ct.
Bhupender and ASI Brahamdutt Sharma under
section 161 Cr.P.C, who have identified the accused in the present case, it is apparent that they have seen the accused on the spot on 26.03.2030. Ld. SPP for the State seeks adjournment to advance arguments on charge after going through the case diary.
Adjournment is allowed subject to cost of Rs.5,000/ to be deposited by the State with the Prime Minister National Relief Funds...
6. It is argued by Special Public Prosecutor, for the revisionist, that the impugned order, dated 01.11.2021, is unjustified and against the settled CR No.61/21 STATE VS. SHAHRUKH Page 3/5 principles of law, laid down by the higher courts. It is further argued that, ld. Trial Court, erred in imposition of cost of Rs.5000/, to be deposited by the State, with the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. It is further argued that the adjournment was sought before the ld. Trial Court, on bonafide ground, as there was some typographical error in the statement of the witnesses. As such, it is argued that imposition of cost was unwarranted.
7. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the ld. Trial Court, after perusal of the statement of Ct. Bhupender and ASI Brahamdutt Sharma, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, found that the date, on which both the aforesaid witness saw the accused was recorded in their respective statement as 26.03.2030, which is apparently a typographical error. As such, in these circumstances, ld. SPP sought adjournment for advancing arguments on charge so that he could go through the case diary.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussions and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the adjournment sought on behalf of the State, on the date of passing of the impugned order, was necessitated apparently on account of some typographical error regarding the date i.e 26.03.2030 on which witnesses, namely, Ct. Bhupender and ASI Brahamdutt Sharma, saw accused at the spot. Even during the course of arguments, it was submitted by ld. SPP for the State that the actual date on which the aforesaid witnesses saw the accused on the spot was 26.02.2020, but due to typographical error, same was, inadvertently, recorded in their respective statements as 26.03.2030.
9. Since, the error, with the respect to the date, recorded in the statement of the aforesaid witnesses, appears to be typographical error, I deem it appropriate to modify the impugned order, dated 01.11.2021, to CR No.61/21 STATE VS. SHAHRUKH Page 4/5 the extent that the cost of Rs.5,000/ imposed by the ld. Trial Court upon the State, is waived. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of.
10. Copy of this judgment, along with Trial Court record, be sent to the ld.Trial Court for information.
11. Copy of this order be also given dasti to concerned IO as well as ld. SPP, for information and compliance.
12. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20th DECEMBER, 2021 (RAMESH KUMAR) PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI CR No.61/21 STATE VS. SHAHRUKH Page 5/5