State Vs. Shiv Charan

State vs Shiv Charan

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Delhi Decided Mar 19, 1998

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/705462

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/705462
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Dalveer Bhandari, J.
Decided On: Mar 19, 1998
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 207 of 1980
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 401--Revision--Delay--Challenge of order passed in respect of an offence committed about 21 years ago--In the circumstances no interference with the order is called for.;Delhi Police Act, 1978 - Section 140--Protection from prosecution--Offence committed prior ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 401; Delhi Police Act, 1978 - Sections 140

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State

Advocate R.P. Luthra and; M.S. Butalia, Advs

Respondent

Shiv Charan

Advocate Santosh Kohli, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 401; Delhi Police Act, 1978 - Sections 140
Reported In: 1998CriLJ2776; 76(1998)DLT873; 1998(45)DRJ289; 1998RLR324

Excerpt

.....as an incident of military service, a specific provision has been incorporated in the pension regulations to bring such travel within the entitlement for disability pension if an injury is sustained in this duration. fifthly, it cannot be said that each and every injury sustained while availing of casual leave would entitle the victim to claim disability pension. sixthly, provisions treating casual leave as on duty would be relevant for deciding questions pertaining to pay or to the right of the authorities to curtail or cancel the leave. lastly, injury or death resulting from an activity not connected with military service would not justify and sustain a claim for disability pension. this is so regardless f whether the injury or death has occurred at the place of posting or during working hours. this is because attributability to military service is a factor which is required to be established. - against the order of discharge, the delhi administration has preferred this revision petition in which it is mentioned that the learned metropolitan magistrate failed to consider that the case against the respondent shiv charan related to his act done prior to the commencement of delhi police act, and as such, any investigation commenced prior to the coming into operation of the delhi police act, the same had to be dealt with according to the procedure then laid.dalveer bhandari, j.1. this revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the metropolitan magistrate delhi dated 14.1.1980 in which he had discharged the accused under sections 218/468/466/420 ipc. brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this revision petition are recapitulated as under:-the respondent shiv charan was posted in traffic police who had been issuing bogus traffic challans to the drivers, owners of public motor vehicles showing therein falsely that their documents viz. driving licences, fitness certificates, etc. are impounded and attached with the so-called forged challans, while such documents never existed with the parties, or the same were time barred. the respondent enabled some of the drivers of the public vehicles to operate without valid papers and this helped in evading their prosecution against some consideration and with ulterior motives. the respondent was prosecuted under the aforesaid sections. the metropolitan magistrate prima facie found a case against the respondent shiv charan under section 218 ipc. according to the learned metropolitan magistrate, section 140 of the delhi police act puts a bar to the suits and prosecution against the police officers. according to the learned metropolitan magistrate, section 140 of the d.p. act, provides a mandatory bar to the prosecution against a police official if the prosecution has been filed against such a person after more than three months or within a year, with the previous sanction of the administrator. the instant case has been instituted in the court on 16.4.1979 while the alleged act has been committed in the year 1977. thus the institution of the prosecution is obviously time barred. accordingly, the respondent shiv charan, accused, was given benefit of the new provisions and was consequently discharged. against the order of discharge, the delhi administration has preferred this revision petition in which it is mentioned that the learned metropolitan magistrate.....

Full Judgment

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi dated 14.1.1980 in which he had discharged the accused under Sections 218/468/466/420 IPC. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this revision petition are recapitulated as under:-

The respondent Shiv Charan was posted in traffic Police who had been issuing bogus traffic challans to the drivers, owners of public motor vehicles showing therein falsely that their documents viz. driving licences, fitness certificates, etc. are impounded and attached with the so-called forged challans, while such documents never existed with the parties, or the same were time barred. The respondent enabled some of the drivers of the public vehicles to operate without valid papers and this helped in evading their prosecution against some consideration and with ulterior motives. The respondent was prosecuted under the aforesaid sections. The Metropolitan Magistrate prima facie found a case against the respondent Shiv Charan under Section 218 IPC. According to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act puts a bar to the suits and prosecution against the Police officers. According to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Section 140 of the D.P. Act, provides a mandatory bar to the prosecution against a police official if the prosecution has been filed against such a person after more than three months or within a year, with the previous sanction of the Administrator. The instant case has been instituted in the court on 16.4.1979 while the alleged act has been committed in the year 1977. Thus the institution of the prosecution is obviously time barred. Accordingly, the respondent Shiv Charan, accused, was given benefit of the new provisions and was consequently discharged. Against the order of discharge, the Delhi Administration has preferred this revision petition in which it is mentioned that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate failed to consider that the case against the respondent Shiv Charan related to his act done prior to the commencement of Delhi Police Act, and as such, any investigation commenced prior to the coming into operation of the Delhi Police Act, the same had to be dealt with according to the procedure then laid. Though I find some force in the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the Delhi Administration, but I do not think it necessary to decide the controversy in this case for the simple reason that the incident is more than 21 years old.

Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice, because of gross delay in deciding this revision petition, I do not think any interference is called for against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The revision-petition is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1998 Same Parties State vs Shiv Charan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Dalveer Bhandari, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 401; Delh...

Criminal