Delhi District Court
Pappu Kumar S/O Sh Shanker Singh vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 31 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/SPL. JUDGE (NDPS)
DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI
Crl. Revision No.223/12
1. Pappu Kumar s/o Sh Shanker Singh
....Revisionist
Vs.
The State (NCT of Delhi)
...... Respondent
Date of Institution: 15.10.2012
Reserved for Order on : 25.07.2013
Order announced on : 31.07.2013
ORDER
The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 19.07.2012 passed by Sh.Vivek Kumar Gulia, Ld. MM, whereby the charge u/s 384/506(1) IPC in FIR no.508/03 was framed against the revisionist.
2. Briefly stated the facts for giving rise to this revision petition are that revisionist Pappu was the Pappu Kumar Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) CR No. 223/12 Page no.1 of 9 thekedaar(contractor) of supply of electricity to the residents of the colony and coaccused Shankar Singh and Appu Kumar being father and brother of revisionist Pappu used to extort money/electricity prices at double rates from the residents of the locality. It has been further alleged that on 23.09.09 accused persons came to the house of complainant and by showing desi katta they tried to extort Rs.10000/ and also demanded electricity prices for the last 3 months at double rates. They also gave threat to the complainant. Investigation was conducted and accused persons were arrested and thereafter enlarged on bail. On 15.09.2011 Ld. MM had heard the arguments on the point of charge and ordered for framing of charge u/s 384 and 506(1) IPC r/w sec 34 IPC against coaccused Shanker Singh and Appu Kumar. The present revisionist was declared P.O. vide order dated 5.3.2011 and thereafter, on an application production warrants were issued against him. On 19.07.2012, Ld. MM, finding prima facie evidence against the revisionist ordered for framing of charge against him and accordingly charge u/s 385/506(1) IPC was framed against him. Feeling aggrieved by the said Pappu Kumar Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) CR No. 223/12 Page no.2 of 9 order dated 19.7.2012 regarding framing of charge, the present revisionist preferred this present revision petition.
3. The present revision petition was received by this court and trial court record was summoned and received. Thereafter I have heard the arguments on this revision.
4. During the course of arguments it has been submitted by the Ld.Counsel for the revisionist that on the day when the order was passed, the counsel of the revisionist was indispensable owing to some inevitable reasons and thereafter the application was moved by the proxy counsel seeking adjournment for arguments on charge but the Ld. MM did not entertain the same and dismissed the same with wrong presumption that the revisionist is applying delay tactics. It is submitted that the revisionist was not present when the FIR was lodged, when the investigation was made and the report u/s 173 Cr.PC was also filed in his absence. It is further submitted that no speaking order has been passed. He Pappu Kumar Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) CR No. 223/12 Page no.3 of 9 relied upon case law Satish Mehra Vs. State in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that only on the basis of format, the charge shall not be framed to waste the precious time of the court and if found so, the accused may be discharged. Ld. Counsel has drawn the attention on sec.154 Cr.PC and stated that allegation at this stage may be true or may not be true and subject matter of collection of evidence and the sanctity and credibility within the framed ingredient provided u/s 385 IPC shall be considered. Ld. Counsel submitted that the order passed by the Ld. MM may kindly be set aside and opportunity to hear may kindly be granted.
5. It would be apt to recall that a court exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot go into intricate details as regards the merits of a matter and may interfere only when there is any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the lower court. A revisional court cannot act as a court of appeal and reappraise the merits of the case. Thus the task that lay before this court is to see whether Pappu Kumar Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) CR No. 223/12 Page no.4 of 9 the trial court carefully applied the law with regard to framing of charge and if there is any infirmity in the impugned order.
6. In the present case, Ld. MM has framed the charge u/s 385/506I IPC. Section 385 IPC contemplates Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion. Section 506 IPC contemplates - Punishment for criminal intimidation. I have gone through the order passed by the Ld. MM dated 19.07.2012 as well as the statement of the complainant. I have also perused the statements of witnesses available on file. As per the spirit of section 239 Cr.PC if the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless on considering police report and the documents sent with it, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reason for so doing and as per section 240 Cr.PC if Magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence and could be adequately punished, he shall frame in writing a charge Pappu Kumar Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) CR No. 223/12 Page no.5 of 9 against the accused.
7. The main gist of the arguments of the Ld. Counsel is that he has not been heard on the point of charge. In view of this I have also perused the impugned order under challenge which is appended below: '19.07.2012 Present: Ld.APP for the State.
All accused persons on bail with proxy counsel. An application moved by accused Pappu Kumar seeking adjournment as the main counsel is not well. It is observed that on last date of hearing adjournment was granted on request of Ld. Defence counsel as he was not prepared to argue on the point of charge in regard to accused Pappu Kumar. Moreover, it is observed that matter is 9 years old. Therefore I am not inclined to give further opportunity to accused Pappu Kumar for arguments.
Heard on the point of charge. No submissions made on behalf of accused Pappu Kumar to counter the charge. It is observed that charge u/s 384 and 506 IPC has already been framed against two coaccused persons, who are the family members of accused Pappu Kumar, vide order dated 15.09.2011 and the revision petition of those two accused persons has already been dismissed by Sessions Court vide order dated 13.03.2012. Further, it is found that allegations against all three accused persons are similar and therefore, the adjournment application seems to be nothing but a delaying tactics. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Finding a prima facie case, charges are framed against accused Pappu Kumar in respect of offences u/s 385/506(I) IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Pappu Kumar Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) CR No. 223/12 Page no.6 of 9 Summons be issued to first three witnesses through SHO concerned. Case property, if any, be also produced on next date.
Put up for P.E. On 12.10.2012.
(Vivek Kumar Gulia) MM02(SW)/Dwarka Courts Delhi/19.07.2012
8. The impugned order clearly indicate that on 19.07.2012 Ld. Counsel for the accused/revisionist was not present. However, proxy counsel for the accused was available who had moved an application for adjournment. But the said application was dismissed by the Ld. MM observing that the charge u/s 384/506 IPC has already been framed against co accused who are family members of accused Pappu Kumar and the revision petitions filed against the said order has already been dismissed vide order dated 13.03.2012. It is also observed that the allegations against all the three accused persons are similar and therefore, the adjournment application seems to be nothing but a delaying tactics. Perusal of file revealed that the present case FIR was lodged in the year 2003 and challan was filed on 20.12.2004 and since then the case has been adjourned either on one pretext or the Pappu Kumar Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) CR No. 223/12 Page no.7 of 9 other. After framing of charge against coaccused, revision was filed which has already been dismissed vide order dated 13.03.2012. It is now about 9 years since filing of charge sheet but the case is still at initial stage. In consideration of the submissions of the Ld. Counsel that he has not been heard on the point of charge, the order passed by the Ld. MM also clearly indicate that on 19.07.2012 no arguments were made on charge on behalf of revisionist/accused Pappu Kumar as it has been clearly mentioned in the order of Ld. MM that 'no submissions made on behalf of accused Pappu Kumar to counter the charge'. In view of the process of law and doctrine of natural justice, it was incumbent upon Ld. MM to hear the revisionist/accused on the point of charge regarding allegations made in the chargesheet and he should not have framed the charge only on the basis that the charge has already been framed against coaccused and that the allegations against them are of similar nature.
9. In view of my above discussions, the order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the Ld. MM without Pappu Kumar Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) CR No. 223/12 Page no.8 of 9 hearing the Ld.counsel for the revisionist is hereby set aside. Ld. MM is directed to given an opportunity to the Ld. Counsel to make the arguments on charge and then pass appropriate order on charge. The revision petition is accordingly allowed.
10. Revisionist is directed to appear before the Ld. Trial court on 07.08.2013 and make the arguments on charge.
11. Trial court file be sent back with the copy of this order to the court concerned.
12. Revision file be consigned to record room. Announced in the Open Court on 31.07.2013.
(SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE/ SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS) NEW DELHI Pappu Kumar Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) CR No. 223/12 Page no.9 of 9