Delhi District Court
Ashwani Kumar vs . State on 11 May, 2010
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 14/2010.
ASHWANI KUMAR VS. STATE
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - I,
DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CRIMINAL REVSION NO. 14/2010
U/S : 397 READ WITH 401 Cr.P.C.
ASHWANI KUMAR
OWNER/EDITOR OF
PUNJAB KESARI NEWSPAPER
PLOT NO.2, PRINTING PRESS
COMPLEX, RING ROAD,
DELHI110035. . . . . REVISIONIST.
VERSUS
STATE . . . RESPONDENT.
Date of Institution : 12.03.2010
Arguments heard on : 06.05.2010
Judgment announced on : 11.05.2010
ORDER DATED 11.12.2009 PASSED BY SHRI ASHUTOSH
KUMAR, ACMM-I, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI. IN FIR
NO.150/05, PS- KESHAV PURAM, UNDER SECTION
4447/186 IPC IN THE CASE TITLED AS STATE VS ASHWANI
KUMAR.
: 1 :
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 14/2010.
ASHWANI KUMAR VS. STATE
ORDER
1. The present Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. preferred against the impugned order dated 12.12.2009 passed by Shri Ashutosh Kumar, learned ACMM-I, Rohini, Delhi in the case entitled as State Vs. Ashwani Kumar, FIR No.150/05, under Section 447/186 IPC, PS-Keshav Puram.
2. In brief, facts are that the Revisionist hails from the Newspaper family. The family facing threat from terrorism since 1982 and Government has provided them Z+ security. The revisionist resides at Plot No.2, Printing Press Complex, Ring Road, near Wazirpur DTC Depot. A Newspaper has been published in the name of "Punjab Kesari", from the said plot. In the year 1989 i.e. on 1.12.1989 the DDA was kind enough to allot the adjoining plot to the petitioner and asked to deposit Rs.66,62,295/-. The Organization did not pay the amount and subsequently allotment was cancelled on 16.2.1992,
3. The Revisionist requested the Vice Chairman, DDA when the financial situation of the organization improved to restoration of the abovesaid allotment of plot. In the year 1997 Hon'ble Lt. Governor informed the Revisionist that restoration request cannot be considered till the final outcome of Contempt Petition filed by M/s. Quami Ekta International against DDA and : 2 : CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 14/2010.
ASHWANI KUMAR VS. STATE both plots number 3 & 4 were vacant. In the year 2002-03, M/s.D.D. Motors started its work in Plot no.5 and dumped garbage in Plot No.3 & 4 and started misusing the said plot as stockyard. M/s. D.D. Motors encroached upon the land. The Revisionist and his family informed the DDA but nothing has been done.
4. On 29.3.2005 the petitioner started constructing the boundary wall on Plot no.3 & 4 then DDA officials came and stopped the further construction work and police was also called. The DDA officials were apprised of the facts regarding the allotment and pendency of contempt case in the Hon'ble High Court. On 30.03.2005 a false case was registered against the Revisionist in connivance with the D.D. Motors and DDA officials. Subsequently, vide order dated 19.5.2005, DDA informed the petitioner that constructions of the boundary wall has been started at the abovesaid plots, which is likely to be completed by 31.5.2005 and proper watch may be kept on the encroachment and illegal activities. The revisionist was surprised to receive summons after two years from the court of Illaka Magistrate. The copy of chargesheet supplied on 26.4.07. Learned ACMM vide impugned order dated 11.12.2009 refused to discharge the Revisionist.
: 3 :
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 14/2010.
5. The impugned order assailed on inter alia grounds that no offence under Section 447 IPC is made out. Learned Trial Court has erred in interpreting that unauthorized entry is criminal trespass. A trespass is not criminal unless or other of the intentions specified in the definition is proved. It is not appreciated by the learned Trial Court that criminal trespass depends on the intentions of the offender and upon the nature of the act. As per allegations it can only be inferred that DDA land was encroached at the instance of the petitioner, which is a civil case and Suit for Mandatory Injunction may be filed. The learned Trial court also not appreciated the distinction between the knowledge and intentions.
6. Learned Trial court failed to appreciate that DDA Officials shouted and misbehaved with the revisionist and offence under Section 186 IPC is also made out. Learned Trial Court travelled beyond the specific provisions of law jeopardize the liberty of the revisionist. It is requested that the impugned order dated 11.12.2009 and the notice dated 11.12.2009 may be quashed.
7. I have heard Shri P.K. Verma, learned APP for the State and Shri Rajesh Khanna, learned Counsel for the Revisionist and perused the record.
: 4 :
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 14/2010.
8. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that the offence punishable under Section 186 IPC and 447 IPC falls in the category of summon trial case as the offences are punishable less than two years. In a summon trial case notice has to be framed as per Section 251 Cr.P.C. In summon trial case Chapter XXVII of the Cr.P.C. is not attracted. As per Chapter XX of the Cr.P.C. Section 251 Cr.P.C. provides that when in a summon case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge. According to Section 251 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate has no power to discharge the accused. The Magistrate can only acquit the accused if upon taking the evidence referred in Section 254Cr.P.C. He finds the accused not guilty but he has no power to discharge the accused at the stage of Section 251 Cr.P.C.
9. Hence, in view of above discussions the Revision Petition against the order of framing of notice under Section 251Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
: 5 :
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 14/2010.
10. Now coming on the merit of the case as per trial court record the incident is dated 29.3.2005 at about 12.30 p.m. when DDA officials reached when the Revisionist/accused has constructed the boundary wall at Plot No.3 & 4, between Punjab Kesari and M/s. D.D. Motors. No paper of allotment shown to the JE/AE of the DDA and other officers of DDA visited at the site, and at 5p.m. Police was called. The Revisionist called a photographer and shouted on the officials of DDA and misbehaved with them. He had also extended threat. The act committed by Revisionist prima facie attract the Section 186/447 IPC.
11. Learned Counsel for the Revisionist has relied upon following judgments (1) Manwal Sood VS Nawal Kishore and Another AIR 1983 SC 159 (2) Bala Barhiha & Others VS Kathu Bariha 1970 Cri.L.J. 476 (Vol.76, C.N.110) & AIR 1970 Orrissa 47 (V 57 C 21) (3) Man Singh VS. State 1979 Cri.L.J. 1433. I have gone through the abovesaid judgments relied by the Revisionist. All are distinquishable in the present facts, circumstances and stage of the case. These are of no help to the revisionist. I do not find any substance in the abovesaid Judgments in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
: 6 :
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 14/2010.
12. In view of above observations and discussions, I do not find any substance in the Revision Petition. There is no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness found in the impugned order. The Revision Petition is devoid of merits, hence, dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial court on 12.05.2010 at 10:00 A.M. Trial court record be sent back to the trial court concerned alongwith copy of order. Revision file be consigned to record room. Announced in the Open Court (SANJAY KUMAR) Dated : 11.05.2010 Addl. Sessions Judge-I(NW), Room no. 308, Rohini Courts, Delhi : 7 :