Delhi District Court
State vs Mahavir on 6 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN, MM06, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI DISTRCT, NEW DELHI State Vs Mahavir FIR No : 186/12 U/s : 279/338 IPC PS : Parliament Street JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 372/02
b) Unique Case ID No. : 02403R0205392013
c) The date of commission of the
offence : 26.12.2012
d) Name of the complainant : HC Vijender Pal
e) Name, parentage & address
of accused : Mahavir S/o Ram Kishan
R/o RZ20, New Roshan Pura, Nehru
Garden, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
f) Offences complained of : 279/338 IPC
g) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final Judgment : Acquitted
i) Date of institution of case : 15.07.2013
j) Date of final arguments : 03.06.2015
k) Date of Judgment : 06.06.2015
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. In the present case chargesheet was filed by the State under Sections 279/338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter mentioned as 'IPC') against the accused Mahavir on 15.07.2013. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.12.2012, at about 10:30 PM, at Pandit Pant Marg, Mahadev Road Crossing, Delhi, the accused was driving a DTC bus route no.729 bearing registration no.DL1PC0957 in a manner so rash and negligent so as to FIR No.186/12 State vs. Mahavir Page no. 1 of 7 endanger human life and personal safety of others. Further, the case of prosecution is that on the aforesaid date, time and place of accident, while driving the aforesaid vehicle in the said manner accused struck against one Scooter make Bajaj bearing registration no.UP32E5754 and caused grievous injuries on the person of Manjit Singh.
2. On the basis of aforesaid chargesheet, this court took cognizance of the offences in question against the accused. Upon appearance of the accused, the documents were supplied to him in compliance of section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter mentioned as 'Cr.P.C.'). Notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. qua offences u/s 279/338 IPC was served upon the accused by this Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 18.09.2013. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. This court decided to first examine PW/ injured Sardar Manjit Singh and issued summons against him. However, the witness did not appear in the court despite repeated opportunities given by the court. The bailable warrants issued against the aforesaid witness through DCP concerned received back unexecuted and consequently injured Manjit Singh was dropped from the list of witnesses by the court vide detailed order dated 03.06.2015. It was then pointed out by Ld. Counsel for accused that examination of other witnesses would be a futile exercise as there is no other eye witness of the incident in question and the only material witness FIR No.186/12 State vs. Mahavir Page no. 2 of 7 i.e. injured Manjit Singh could not be examined by the prosecution. The submissions made by Ld. Counsel for accused were affirmed by Ld. APP for State.
4. In lieu of material on record and aforesaid submissions this court did not deem it expedient to record testimonies of remaining witnesses who were merely formal witnesses. Thus, while exercising the power u/s 258 Cr.P.C., this court stopped the proceedings of the present case as continuing with trial in this case would have resulted in wastage of judicial time, resources and money.
5. In order to bring home guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 279/338 IPC, testimony of PW/ injured Sardar Manjit Singh was vital and in the absence of his testimony and absence of any other eye witness to the incident, identity of accused, injuries received by the injured and alleged rash and negligent driving by the accused can never be proved by the prosecution. This is thus, the apt case for exercise of power u/s 258 Cr.P.C. to cut short the trial which would otherwise result in wastage of judicial time and harassment to the accused.
6. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka AIR 2002 SC 1856, the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
"...........22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective FIR No.186/12 State vs. Mahavir Page no. 3 of 7 mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression. Section 309, dealing with power to postpone or adjourn proceedings, provides generally for every inquiry or trial, being proceeded with as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same to be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Courts finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following days to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. Explanation2 to Section 309 confers power on the Court to impose costs to be paid by the prosecution or the accused, in appropriate cases; and putting the parties on terms while granting an adjournment or postponing of proceedings. This power to impose costs is rarely exercised by the Courts. Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts. In appropriate cases, inherent power to the High Court, under Section 482 can be invoked to make such orders, as may be necessary, to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. The power is wide and, if FIR No.186/12 State vs. Mahavir Page no. 4 of 7 judiciously and consciously exercised, can take care of almost all the situations where interference by the High Court becomes necessary on account of delay in proceedings or for any other reason amounting to oppression or harassment in any trial, inquiry or proceedings. In appropriate cases, the High Courts have exercised their jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of first information report and investigation, and terminating criminal proceedings if the case of abuse of process of law was clearly made out. Such power can certainly be exercised on a case being made out of breach of fundamental right conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay's case referred to such power, vesting in the High Court (vide paras 62 and 65 of its judgment) and held that it was clear that even apart from Article 21, the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and putting to an end, by making appropriate orders, to further proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted................"
7. In Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while relying upon the aforesaid judgment, observed:
"..............16. Notwithstanding elaborate enunciation of Article 21 of the Constitution in Abdul Rehman Antulay (supra), and rejection of the fervent plea of proponents of right to speedy trial for laying down timelimits as bar beyond which a criminal trial shall not proceed pronouncements of this Court in "Common Cause" A Registered Society Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.,"Common Cause", A Registered Society Vs. Union of India and Ors., Raj Deo Sharma Vs.State of Bihar and Raj Deo Sharma II Vs. State of Bihar gave rise to some FIR No.186/12 State vs. Mahavir Page no. 5 of 7 confusion on the question whether an outer time limit for conclusion of criminal proceedings could be prescribed whereafter the trial court would be obliged to terminate the proceedings and necessarily acquit or discharge the accused.
The confusion on the issue was set at rest by a sevenJudge Bench of this court in P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka. Speaking for the majority, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as his Lordship then was) while affirmin that the dictum in A.R. Antulay's case (supra) is correct and still holds the field and the propositions emerging from Article 21 of the Constitution and expounding the right to speedy trial laid down as guidelines in the said case adequately take care of right to speedy trial, it was held that guidelines laid down in the A.R. Antulay's case (supra) are not exhaustive but only illustrative. They are not intended to operate as hard and fast rules or to be applied like a straitjacket formula. Their applicability would depend on the factsituation of each case as it is difficult to foresee all situations and no generalization can be made. It has also been held that it is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. Nonetheless, the courts should exercise their available powers such as those under Sections 309, 311 and 258 of CrPC to the right to speedy trial. In appropriate cases, jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be invoked seeking appropriate relief or suitable directions. The outer limits or power of limitation expounded in the aforenoted judgments were held to be not in consonance with the legislative intent..............."
8. Accordingly, in the absence of testimony of PW/ injured Sardar Manjit Singh and any other eyewitness to the incident in question and in the light of aforementioned cited judgments, the court while protecting the right of accused to have speedy justice, invokes the power conferred upon it FIR No.186/12 State vs. Mahavir Page no. 6 of 7 under Section 258 Cr.P.C. to stop the proceedings against accused Mahavir S/o Ram Kishan qua offences u/s 279/338 IPC in the present summons police case and hereby releases the accused under aforementioned sections, which shall have the effect of acquittal.
Bail bond furnished in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. by the accused. The same is accepted for six months from today.
Announced in the open Court (Akash Jain)
on 06.06.2015 Metropolitan Magistrate06,
Patiala House Court,
New Delhi.
FIR No.186/12 State vs. Mahavir Page no. 7 of 7