Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. It is submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed   by   Learned   Metropolitan   Magistrate   and   Revision   Petition therefore, should be dismissed.

16. On   behalf   of   revisionist,   who   has   also   filed   written submissions, it has been submitted that Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has   wrongly   held   that   cognizance   of   the   offences   u/s   166,   167, 341,342,427,448,217,218,379,417 and 384 IPC is barred by limitation. It was   submitted   that   Learned   Metropolitan   Magistrate   has   held   vide   the impugned order that Section 219 IPC is made out, but since this offence has   been   committed   beyond   his   territorial   jurisdiction,   he   cannot   take cognizance   of   the   same.   It   was   submitted   that   Learned   Metropolitan Magistrate   has   ignored   the   Section   468   (3)   Cr.   PC,   which  interalia provides that the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable   with   the   more   severe   punishment.   It   was   submitted   that Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors.                                                                                                             Page no.    10 of 22 punishment u/s 219 IPC is seven years, therefore, the limitation for three years will not be applicable and for the rest of the offences, therefore, Learned   Metropolitan   Magistrate   should   have   taken   the   cognizance   for other   offences   alongwith   Section   219   IPC.   It   was   also   submitted   that Learned Metropolitan Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance for the offence under Section 219 IPC as well.  

17. It was submitted that Section 166 IPC is made out against the arrayed accused, who are public servants. It was submitted that the property   of   the   revisionist   was   well   protected   by   Delhi   Laws   (Special Provisions) Act, 2006 and by taking demolition action in violation of this Act of 2006, they have committed offence u/s 166 IPC. It was submitted that   Section   427   IPC   is   also   made   out   as   wrongful   destruction   of   the property   of   the   revisionist   has   been   caused   by   the   act   of   the   arrayed respondents. It is submitted that they also  committed criminal trespass after preparing   causing wrongful restraint. Revisionist also insisted that offence of forgery is made out against the arrayed respondents as they have filed the false report. 

Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors.                                                                                                             Page no.    16 of 22

25. During arguments before Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, it was submitted that the offences punishable u/s 452,455,420,468 and 466 IPC are also made out. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has discussed and opined that the offences punishable u/s 420, 468, 455, 452 and 380 IPC are not made out. I have found no reason to disagree with the opinion expressed  by Learned  Metropolitan  Magistrate.  The  impugned  order to that extent does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. 

26. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has observed that affidavit, alleged  to be containing  false statement, was filed in the Hon'ble  High Court by J. S. Yadav (R­9), therefore, he has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. This observation of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate is confined to the commission of offence punishable u/s 219 IPC, which provides;  

Section   219   IPC:­  "Whoever,   being   a   public   servant,   corruptly   or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."