Full Text
Translation output
vj
% 25.OL.20LI
Present: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. U.L. Watwani, APP for the State.
I Crl, Rev. P. 6 '11 1
By way of present petition under Section 397 read with Section
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner has prayed that order dated lotr' May, 2O1O passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate (ACMM), New Delhi whereby complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed for non-prosecution qua the respondent no.2 (accused no. 6) be set aside.
' Petitioner had filed a complaint before the ACMM praying therein that M/s Allen Woodroffe & Co. (I) Pvt. Limited (for short hereinafter referred to as "Company''), its directors and certain officers be summoned and punished for having committed offences punishable under Sections 7321135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, L962 and, section 5 of the Imports and Exports (control) Act, 1947. Company was arrayed as accused no. 1, while its three directors were arrayed. as accused. nos. 2, 3 and 4. Respondent no. 2 was arrayed as accused no.6.
During the pendency of complaint case respond.ent no. 2 was released on bail. It appears that he jumped the bail. Non-bailable warrants issued against him remained unserved, consequently, .a
2011:DHC:10828
\, ,\
(g') process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued. In tli"\-/ order learned ACMM has mentioned that petitioner had failed to take steps for publication of the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. in the newspaper despite courts order, therefore, complaint was liable to be dismissed against respondent no.2.
No notice of this petition is required to be served on respondent no.2 since the case was pend.ing before the Trial Court at the stage of declaring him Proclaimed Offender. This step had to be taken as respondent no. 2 is untraceable, inasmuch as, non-bailable warrants issued. against him remained unexecuted.
In my view, learned ACMM has committed procedural irregulanty in dismissing the complaint qua the respondent no. 2 fot non-prosecution. After obtaining the bail from the court respondent no.2 had absconded. In this scenario, it was for the court to take effective steps so as to see that offender is brought back before it and faces the trial. In case it was not possible then to ensure that he. is declared Proclaimed Offender and is prosecuted in accordance with law. In case petitioner-department was slack in serving the process it was open for the court to take steps to see that orders passed by it are implemented by adopting coercive methods. However, lethargr on the part of the petitioner cannot be a ground to let off accused, who even has no respect for the law. e
V.
For the foregoing reasons impugned order is set aside and complaint case qua respondent no. 2 (accused no. 6) is restored.
Learned ACMM shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
JANUARY 25,2OL1 ga t
Present: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. U.L. Watwani, APP for the State.
I Crl, Rev. P. 6 '11 1
By way of present petition under Section 397 read with Section
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner has prayed that order dated lotr' May, 2O1O passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate (ACMM), New Delhi whereby complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed for non-prosecution qua the respondent no.2 (accused no. 6) be set aside.
' Petitioner had filed a complaint before the ACMM praying therein that M/s Allen Woodroffe & Co. (I) Pvt. Limited (for short hereinafter referred to as "Company''), its directors and certain officers be summoned and punished for having committed offences punishable under Sections 7321135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, L962 and, section 5 of the Imports and Exports (control) Act, 1947. Company was arrayed as accused no. 1, while its three directors were arrayed. as accused. nos. 2, 3 and 4. Respondent no. 2 was arrayed as accused no.6.
During the pendency of complaint case respond.ent no. 2 was released on bail. It appears that he jumped the bail. Non-bailable warrants issued against him remained unserved, consequently, .a
2011:DHC:10828
\, ,\
(g') process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued. In tli"\-/ order learned ACMM has mentioned that petitioner had failed to take steps for publication of the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. in the newspaper despite courts order, therefore, complaint was liable to be dismissed against respondent no.2.
No notice of this petition is required to be served on respondent no.2 since the case was pend.ing before the Trial Court at the stage of declaring him Proclaimed Offender. This step had to be taken as respondent no. 2 is untraceable, inasmuch as, non-bailable warrants issued. against him remained unexecuted.
In my view, learned ACMM has committed procedural irregulanty in dismissing the complaint qua the respondent no. 2 fot non-prosecution. After obtaining the bail from the court respondent no.2 had absconded. In this scenario, it was for the court to take effective steps so as to see that offender is brought back before it and faces the trial. In case it was not possible then to ensure that he. is declared Proclaimed Offender and is prosecuted in accordance with law. In case petitioner-department was slack in serving the process it was open for the court to take steps to see that orders passed by it are implemented by adopting coercive methods. However, lethargr on the part of the petitioner cannot be a ground to let off accused, who even has no respect for the law. e
V.
For the foregoing reasons impugned order is set aside and complaint case qua respondent no. 2 (accused no. 6) is restored.
Learned ACMM shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
JANUARY 25,2OL1 ga t
JUDGMENT