1997 Supreme(Raj) 992
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
M.A.A.Khan, J.
Ram Jeevan - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Crl. Misc. Petition No. 889 of 1994.
Decided On : 5-02-1997
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.D. Tripathi & Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. G.D. Penal. P.P.
The Court can quash proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C., to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and secure the ends of justice.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 197 - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - PROCEEDINGS QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Surpanch, was accused of misappropriating Rs. 500/- from the Gram Panchayat and allotting a residential plot to one Harchand Meena without depositing the consideration amount with the Government Treasury. A police report was submitted in 1977, but the Magistrate took cognizance of the offenses only in 1980 after receiving a report from a handwriting expert. The petitioner challenged the order of the Magistrate and obtained a stay from the High Court. In 1987, the High Court quashed the entire proceedings due to the lack of requisite sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. The State Government granted sanction in 1990, and a fresh police report was submitted in 1991. The petitioner again approached the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground of abuse of the process of the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offenses mainly on the basis of an unreliable handwriting expert report, which had no evidential value. The Court also noted that the petitioner was 73 years old and had faced the ordeal of protracted litigation for more than two decades. The Court found that the continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and quashed the entire proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate could take cognizance of the offenses on the basis of a handwriting expert report that had no evidential value? 2. Whether the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner, who was 73 years old and had faced protracted litigation for more than two decades, would amount to abuse of the process of the Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offenses on the basis of a handwriting expert report that had no evidential value. The report was not prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 293, Cr.P.C., and therefore could not be used in evidence without formal proof. 2. The continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner was 73 years old and had faced protracted litigation for more than two decades. There was a remote possibility of his conviction, and the proceedings were being continued despite the basic infirmity in the prosecution's evidence.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the entire proceedings of the trial of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
1. - During the years 1974 75-Ram Jeevan petitioner was working as Surpanch. Gram Punchayat Pala Distt. Alwar. In that capacity the petitioner is alleged to have allotted a residential plot to one Harchand Meena R/o Ratangarh (Pala) vide Receipt No. 19 dated 30.11.74 against a consideration of Rs. 500/-. It is alleged that on 23.5.75 the Secy. Distt. Vigilance Committee. Alwar had inspected the accounts of the said Panchayat and noted that the amount of Rs. 500/- had not been deposited by the petitioner with the Government Treasury and that the duplicate of receipt No. 19 was also missing from the Bill Book. Any action taken on the basis of the report of the Secretary, if any and if submitted, is not borne out of the record.
2. Anyway, on 9.8.77 Harchand Meena appears to have made a complaint against the petitioner to the Distt. Vigilance Officer, Alwar who, directed the Secretary to inquire and report. The Secy. after conducting necessary enquiries into the matter reported that the petitioner had misappropriated the aforesaid amount of Rs. 500/- and had further manipulated other receipts and records having a bearing on the genuineness of Receipt No.19 dated 30.11.74. On the receipt of the report of the Secy. dated 22/ 23.9.77 the Distt. Vigilance Committee recommended departmental action against the petitioner and further directed the Block Development Officer Umren to realise the misappropriated amount from the petitioner.
3. It appears that a copy of the report of the Secy. dated 22/23.9.77 had directly been sent to the SHO P.S. Malakhera who returned the same for want of receipt of the documents mentioned in the report. The report was again sent to the SHO with the request to register a case against the petitioner and to obtain the required documents during the course of investigation. Crime No. 8 of 1997 was accordingly registered on 3.10.77 for offence a/Section 409, I.P.C. against the petitioner and investigation was commenced.
4. In the course of investigation the police seized a number of documents including the original receipt No. 19 dated 30.11.77. Receipt No. 19 aforesaid appears to have been obtained from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alwar. This receipt, as is mentioned in the seizure memo dated 4.7.78, had been issued for Rs. 500/- in the name of one Sri Narain S/o Sri Sheoji Narain Brahmin, Pala. The Investigating Officer appears to have obtained the opinion of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur regarding the hand writing of the petitioner on this receipt. The Director could give no definite opinion about the authorship of the receipt by the petitioner. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a Final Report u/ Section 169, Cr.P.C. in the case on 31.7.79.
5. The Final Report came to the put up before the learned Magistrate for orders on 1.2.80. By that time Harchand Meena, the receipt holder, had filed his protest petition against the Final Report. Alongwith his protest petition he had filed the report of Sri Krishna Charan, a handwriting expert, who had, on comparing the signature of the petitioner on the Receipt No. 19 with those on a certificate issued to one Heera Lal Sharma, and on the Ration Card No. 23176 issued in the name of Kanhya Lal Sharma had opined in his report dated 21.6.78 that the disputed document (Receipt) had the signatures of the petitioner. After taking into account such report and other documents furnished alongwith the police report, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences u/Sections 409, 465, 468 and 477-A, I.P.C. and summoned the petitioner as accused thereof. After putting in appearance by him in the Court, the petitioner was charged with the above-mentioned offences. He pleaded not guilty and challenged the order of the Magistrate dated 2.7.80, framing charges, before this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 138 of 1980. This Court, vide order dated 25.8.80, transferred petitioner's application u /Section 39
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
