Full Text
CRL.REV.P. 445/2013
STATE Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for State
05.08.2013 CrI.M.A. No.11710/2013 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 r/w Sec. 482
Cr.P.C.)
For reasons disclosed in the application delay of 145 days' in filing the accompanying petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. No. 445/2013 Impugned order of5"' December, 2012 instead of discharging the second respondent/accused remands back the matter to the trial court by adopting the following reasoning:-
'The tanker could not have been, otherwise, removed by this petitioner, except in connivance with the owner of the tanker, i.e., the co accused, since discharged, by the Ld.
Cr.Rev.P. No. 445/2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:8501 Magistrate. As the State had not filed any revision/ appeal againstperson since discharged, so ifpetitioner is charged u/S
ORDER
120 B IPC for committing conspiracy for the offence u/s 201/409 IPC, then again the question would arise that with whom he had conspired. These are some question which need to be looked into afresh by the Ld. M.M. The offence relates to an act ofa police official to remove such tanker out of the police station, to facilitate its OMmers to deliver the oil, without following the due process oflaw.' The aforesaid reasoning does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Regarding discharge of the first respondent/accused impugned order notes that his role was of supervisory nature and the Incharge of malkhana is the Additional S.H.O. and so, first respondent/accused cannot be called upon to face trial for the offence under Sections 201/120- -B IPC & 409/120 B IPC. What had weighed with the Revisional Court in discharging the first respondent/accused is as follows 7d The allegations qua that petitioner Rajender Paul used to obtain Rs.30,000/- p.m., to facilitate the co accused person, since discharged, to allow them to run their illegal trade also do notfind supportfrom any document and is based on disclosure statements of co-accused, since discharged. The Ld. MM has discharged those accused who made disclosure then how could their disclosure be used against this petitioner. Further ifthis petitioner was takingprotection money then why Cr. Rev.P. No. 445/2013 Page 2 he did not auction the co-accused person in advance rather than after the raid. The role of this petitioner was of supervisory nature. He may face a domestic enquiry for his negligence in duty but certainly not a charge of conspiracy, especially in absence ofany legally admissibleevidence against him. Hence petitioner Inspector Rajender Paul stands discharged ofthe chargesframed against him.' Upon hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for petitioner- State, I find no infirmity in the aforesaid reasoning of the revisional court. There is no palpable error in the impugned order. This petition is accordingly dismissed. AUGUST 05, 2013 r Cr. Rev.P. No. 445/2013 (SUNIL GAiIr) JUDGE & i-f r- 13 Page 3 $-60 HIGH COURT OF DELHI Crl.M.A. No.13664/2013 in CRL.REV.P. 445/2013 STATE Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for Petitioner- State
VERSUS
INSP RAJENDER PAUL & ORS Respondents Through: Nemo
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER 13.09.2013 By way of this application, correct of the date of impugned order is sought. Application is allowed as prayed for and the date of impugned order beread of6'*^ December, 2012 instead of 5"" December, 2013. Application stands disposed of SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 s (SUNIL GAUR) Judge Page I 1
JUDGMENT