Sanjeev Kumar vs The State
1988 Latest Caselaw 230 Del

JUDGMENT

Malik Sharief-ud-din, J.

(1) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 2nd March, 1988 passed by Shri Brijesh Sethi, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. According to the petitioner the order is unwarranted against law and is a pure abuse of the process of the Court.

(2) It seems that petitioner was found violating the provisions of Section 83 of Delhi Police Act and for this reason be was challaned before the learned Magistrate. The offence under Section 83 Delhi Police Act is punishable under Section 97 of the same Act. It seems that the police at the time of detecting the violation took a security of Rs. 500.00 from the petitioner. I am not really able to appreciate as to under what law the cash security was demanded and undertaken. If the offence is non cognizable and if the petitioner could not be arrested the only thing that the prosecution could do was to file a complaint before the Court and produce the petitioner before the Court pursuant to the Courts process. It seems that on the date of the hearing the petitioner failed to appear and the Court ordered dismissal of challan after forfeiting cash Security of Rs. 500.00 . The Court below also 358 observed that it is a petty offence punishable with fine only and the presence of the petitioner could not be procured without undue delay and expense. To me, it appears to be a very strange order. Strange in the sense that instead of procuring the attendance of the petitioner and providing him an opportunity to put forward his version of the incident the Court below decided the case in hot haste without having regard to the provisions of law. The offence punishable under Section 87 and 97 of the Delhi Police Act carries maximum punishment of RS. 100.00 . The Court below seems to have totally failed in its duty to take notice of this fact as well. In my, view therefore there has been total miscarriage of justice in this case. The petition is therefore allowed and the order of the Court below is set aside and the Court below is directed to deal with the case in accordance with law.

(3) I have been shown by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner the original order passed on the challan which is in the form of a rubber stamp and I am told in all such matters the rubber stamp is being affixed. This practice clearly shows that the Ld. Magistrate has not applied his mind to the facts of this case and is in the habit of passing rubber stamp orders. This practice has to be depricated. A copy of this order be sent to the Ld. District Session Judge, to be notified to all Metropolitan Magistrates.

(4) The petition is accordingly disposed of.