Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This revision petition has been filed for setting aside judgment and order dated 06.09.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Moga, whereby the judgment and order dated 01.09.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baghapurana in case FIR No.26, dated 12.04.2020, under Sections 188 and 269 of IPC and Section 51 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 was upheld.

2. The brief facts, as per report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., are that on 12.04.2020, ASI Balwinder Singh along with other police officials were present at the bridge of canal at Sekhan Kalan Road in connection with checking due to Corona Pandemic Prohibitions. At that time, one car make I- 20 bearing registration No. PB04-U-8123 came from village Vairoke side. The said ASI stopped the car and asked the petitioner to produce the pass to move the vehicle during curfew but he could not produce the same. He was also not wearing the mask. Accordingly, FIR was registered under Sections 188, 269 IPC and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. After investigation and completion of necessary formalities, the accused was arrested, released on bail, and the challan was presented before the learned Illaqa Magistrate.

5. After closing the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, to which the accused/petitioner denied all the allegations levelled against him and pleaded his false implication.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 188 IPC and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and released him on probation.

7. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Moga vide order dated 06.09.2023.

8. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come before this Court in the instant revision petition.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has erred in convicting the petitioner and granting probation. It is argued that the proceedings are vitiated as no FIR could have been registered for an offence under Section 188 IPC in view of the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C., which mandates filing of a complaint. It is further contended that the prosecution failed to prove the promulgation of the alleged order or the petitioner's knowledge thereof, and thus no offence under Section 188 IPC is made out. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, as he was already in custody in another FIR at the relevant time, rendering his alleged apprehension doubtful. It is lastly argued that the registration of the impugned FIR is illegal, barred by law, and disproportionate to the alleged act. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the order of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Court on its own motion versus State of Punjab and others, bearing CWP-PIL-29 of 2021 and CWP-PIL-112 of 2023, dated 01.10.2024, to submit that registration of FIRs under Section 188 IPC during the COVID- 19 pandemic, without compliance of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are illegal and unsustainable.

13. A bare reading of Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. clearly shows that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC except upon a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the absence of such a complaint, the proceedings are void ab initio.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Ahlawat vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 1 SCC 278, has categorically held that the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature, and non-compli- ance thereof deprives the Court of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-