Delhi District Court
Jai Prakash vs . State And Others Crl.Revision No. ... on 2 September, 2019
Jai Prakash Vs. State and others Crl.Revision No. 82/2019
IN THE COURT OF Shri AJAY GULATI, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE05, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Crl. Revision No. 82/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri Jai Prakash
S/o Shri Dev Parkash,
R/o 803A, Kamla Colony
Rohtak, Haryana .... Revisionist
Versus
1. State
2. Shri Arvind Kumar Yadav
S/o Shri Shumaru Ram
House No. 53, Yadav Park Extension,
Kamruddin Nagar, Delhi. ...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 12.03.2019
Date of arguments : 26.07.2019
Date of Judgment : 02.09.2019
Page 1 of 7
Jai Prakash Vs. State and others Crl.Revision No. 82/2019
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of ld. Trial Court to hear him on the plea of discharge. Learned Trial Court, while passing the impugned order dated 11.2.2019, held that in a Summon Case, once the accused has been summoned, the Court has to record the plea of the accused under Sec. 251 Cr.PC and thereafter the matter has to be taken to its logical conclusion since there is "no provision which permits dropping the proceedings alone the way" (quoting from a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India).
2 While holding as above, ld. Trial Court placed reliance on a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 2005 SCC (Crl.) 242.
3 At this stage, it needs to be highlighted that petitioner and respondent No.2 have been chargesheeted under Section 3/14 of the Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and Section 23 of the Juvenile Page 2 of 7 Jai Prakash Vs. State and others Crl.Revision No. 82/2019 Justice Act 2000. Respondent No. 2 is a proforma party before this Court. Before addressing arguments on merits, ld. Counsel for the petitioner was asked to satisfy the Court on the maintainability of the present Revision Petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Amar Nath and Others Vs. State of Haryana 1977 AIR 2185. In the cited judgment, while explaining the ambit of interlocutory orders, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that orders which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order. I am in agreement with the ld. Counsel for petitioner that refusal of the ld. Trial Court to hear the petitioner/accused on the plea of discharge affect the rights of the accused as also an important aspect of fair trial. Consequently, I hold the present revision to be maintainable.
4 Though the present petition has been couched in terms of seeking discharge of the petitioner, during the course of arguments, ld. Counsel clarified that the petitioner is only submitting the prayer for being heard by the ld. Trial Court on the plea of discharge. It has been argued by the ld. Counsel for the petitioner that even in Page 3 of 7 Jai Prakash Vs. State and others Crl.Revision No. 82/2019 summons case, trial court has the power to discharge at the stage of framing of charge. For this submission, ld. Counsel also placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Bhushan Kumar and Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others AIR 2012 SC 1747. However, it needs a highlight that the judgment relied upon by the ld. Trial Court was delivered by a Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereas the judgment cited by the ld. Counsel for the petitioner has been delivered by Hon'ble Division Bench of the Supreme Court.
5 I have carefully perused the judgment relied upon by ld. Trial Court and the judgment cited before me by the petitioner's counsel. Learned Counsel for the State/Respondent No. 1 has opposed the plea raised by the petitioner. Rival submissions have been duly considered.
6 In the humble understanding of the Court, there is no conflict between the judgment relied upon by the ld. Trial Court and the judgment cited by ld. Counsel for the petitioner. The Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that in a summon Page 4 of 7 Jai Prakash Vs. State and others Crl.Revision No. 82/2019 case, power of discharge cannot be exercised once the plea of accused has been recorded under Section 251 Cr.PC. On the other hand, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Supreme Court, Bhushan Kumar and Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others (supra) (the judgment cited by petitioner's counsel) held that the trial court has to apply its mind before framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.PC i.e. after going through the allegations in chargesheet and consider the evidence before it. If the Court after applying its mind, feels that there is reasonable ground to proceed, it shall explain the accusation to the accused and ask him if he pleads guilty. Otherwise, it is bound to discharge the accused even in a summon case.
7 The purpose of providing a hearing under Section 251 Cr.PC has been lucidly explained by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Arvind Kejriwal and others Vs. Amit Sibal and Others 2014 (1) JCC 229 wherein it had been held by the Hon'ble Bench that the power of the trial court to discharge the accused at the stage of notice under Section 251 Cr.PC, is based on fundamental principles of justice that no person, against whom no offence is disclosed, can be put to trial. In the above cited judgment, Hon'ble Delhi High Court Page 5 of 7 Jai Prakash Vs. State and others Crl.Revision No. 82/2019 followed the judgment of Bhushan Kumar and Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others (Supra). It is also important to highlight that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar and Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that while issuing process under Section 204 Cr.PC, the Magistrate has to only satisfy itself of whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. At that stage, the ld. MM/Trial Court does not have to apply its mind as to whether there is sufficient material to convict the accused.
8 When this observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is read along with the observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as given in Arvind Kejriwal and Others Vs. Amit Sibal and Others (Supra), it comes out clear that when eventually the ld. MM comes to the conclusion that Notice under Section 251 Cr.PC is required to be framed in a summon case, he is thinking of a possibility beyond merely securing the presence of the accused for which purpose summons were initially issued and hence must appraise the chargesheet and evidence collected by the IO, before framing notice under Section 251 Cr.PC Page 6 of 7 Jai Prakash Vs. State and others Crl.Revision No. 82/2019 9 The judgment rendered in Bhushan Kumar's case (Supra) by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is of a later date than the judgment relied upon by ld. Trial Court. Further, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has followed Bhushan Kumar's judgment in Arvind Kejriwal and Others Vs. Amit Sibal and Others (Supra), for which reason I am also inclined to follow the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bhushan Kumar's case.
10 For the foregoing reasons, the Revision Petition is disposed off with the directions to the ld. Trial Court to hear the accused persons on the plea of discharge before deciding whether to frame notice under Section 251 Cr.PC. Parties to appear before the ld. Trial Court on the date fixed before the trial court.
Trial Court record along with copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court/its successor Court for intimation.
After necessary compliance, file of revision petition be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN ( AJAY GULATI )
COURT ON : 2.9.2019 ASJ05 (West), THC, Delhi
Page 7 of 7