Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Complete set of copies were supplied to the accused. After hearing arguments, charges U/s 186/353/332 IPC were framed against the accused by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is to be noted that in the charge at the place of section 353 IPC, the numerical 153 have been written, which is only a typographical error which has caused no prejudice to the accused as ingredients of Section 353 IPC have been specifically mentioned in the charge.

19. It is mandated by Section 195 of Cr.P.C that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable U/s 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. It is admitted position in the present matter that the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C has not been proved on record as Administrative Officer, MCD West Zone Sh. Krishan Kumar Bhardwaj, who made the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C has not been examined in prosecution evidence. Neither the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C has been proved on record by secondary evidence. This is to be noted that on 08.02.2012 Ld. predecessor of this Court had allowed an application U/s 311 Cr.P.C moved by the then Ld. APP to examine MCD (West Zone) Official to prove the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, summons were issued, however, it was observed by the Court on 05.05.2012 that as per the report on summons, it was reported that no person is available in MCD who can identify or verify the signature or the handwriting of Sh. K.K. Bhardwaj. Consequently, the PE was closed. Hence, the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C remained not proved. It is argued by Ld. APP for State that the failure to prove the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C would only vitiate trial in respect of offence punishable U/s 186 IPC, but the trial cannot be vitiated in respect of offence U/s 332 & 353 IPC as no formal complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C is required for taking cognizance for offences punishable under these sections. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. defence counsel placing reliance on Ashok & Ors. Vs. State and Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. State (Supra) that trial for the offences U/s 186, 332 and 353 of the IPC without a special complaint as required U/s 195 (1) (a) (i) of Cr.P.C be illegal is vitiated and deserves to be quashed. The legal proposition as stated by Ld. Defence counsel does not hold good in view of the landmark decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed by a three judges bench in a case titled Durgacharan Naik And Ors vs State Of Orissa, 1966 AIR 1775, wherein it was held:-

20. The above stated principle of law reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme court in Pankaj Aggarwal VS. State of Delhi, LAWS(SC)-2001-3-49, wherein it was held:-

"in view of the judgment of this Court in AIR 1966 SC 1775 where the court has analysed the provisions of Section 353,Indian Penal Code and 186,Indian Penal Code and held that the two are distinct offences and the quality of the offence is also different, we are of the opinion that judgment of the Punjab High Court is not correct in law and has taken a view contrary to the law laid down by this Court. What has been stated earlier in the aforesaid case in relation to the provisions of Section 353,Indian Penal Code would equally apply to the provisions of Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code."

28. The testimonies of PWs are coherent and consistent and are implicating the accused. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, all the ingredients of Section 332 & 353 IPC are satisfied. As such accused Sardar Manjeet Singh is convicted for the offences U/s 332 & 353 IPC. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN                                                (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR)
COURT ON 05.11.2014                                                     MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI

Containing 15 pages all signed by the presiding officer.