Delhi High Court
Ranbir Singh vs State And Others on 3 December, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000 IAD Delhi 65, 82 (1999) DLT 899, 2000 (52) DRJ 378
Author: K Gupta
Bench: K Gupta
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J.
1. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by Ranbir Singh, Gener- al Manager (Excise), Govt. of NCT of Delhi seeks the setting aside of the order dated 3rd August 1998 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate in case FIR No. 75/97 under Section 61, Punjab Excise Act, PS Keshev Puram and all further proceedings pursuant thereto.
2. Facts which led to the filing of present petition are these. On 16th March, 1997 one Vinod Kumar was allegedly found in possession of 50 pouches of country made liquor without any licence and in contravention of the notification issued by Delhi Administration and accordingly said FIR No. 75/97 was registered against him and he was arrested on the same day. Sample lifted from the pouches was sent to Excise laboratory for testing on 3rd April, 1997 and the report was not made available by the laboratory by the time the charge sheet came to be filed against said Vinod Kumar on 17th March, 1998 before the Metropolitan Magistrate. On 17th March 1998 without taking cognizance of the offence the case was postponed to 17th April, 1998 for awaiting the report. On that date for want of report said Vinod Kumar was discharged and notice to show cause was ordered to be issued for 13th May, 1998 to Director, Excise laboratory by the Metropolitan Magistrate. After considering the reply to show cause notice filed by the petitioner a complaint under section 195/340 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be filed before C.M.M., Delhi by the order dated 3rd August 1998 as in the opinion of the M.M. the petitioner had prima facie committed offences punishable under Section 187/217 IPC. It is this order and the complaint filed pursuant thereto before C.M.M. Delhi which are under challenge in this petition.
3. I have heard Sh. S.S. Gandhi for the petitioner and Sh. Akshay Bipin for the State.
4. Alongwith the petition the certified copies of the order sheets from 17th March 1998 to 3rd August 1998, orders dated 17th April, 1998 and 3rd August, 1998 have also been filed. A combined of the orders dated 17th March, 1998 and 17th April 1998 indicated that inspite of the fact that charge-sheet against said Vinod Kumar was filed within limitation period, the M.M. did not take cognizance of the offence thereon and is discharged Vinod Kumar on the ground that charge-sheet in the absence of test report was incomplete and the cognizance of offence under Section 61, Punjab Excise Act had become barred by limitation by 17th April 1998. The issue whether a police report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. without includ- ing the report of expert was incomplete/complete came to be considered by this court in the decisions in Taj Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn), 1988 CRI.L.J.1634 and Kishan Lal Vs. State, . In both these Division Bench decisions it was held that the challan filed without the report of expert is not an incomplete but a complete challan in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and it was open to a Magistrate to take cognizance of offences on the basis of charge-sheet not including the report of ex- pert. Therefore, the premise on which said Vinod Kumar came to be dis- charged and opinion formed by the M.M. that prima facie offences punishable under Sections 187/217 IPC have been committed by the petitioner for his failure to ensure the filing of the expert report itself was legally erro- neous. Impugned order dated 3rd August, 1998 and the Criminal Proceedings arising therefrom pending before C.M.M. Delhi being in the nature of abuse of process of court thus deserves to be set aside under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
5. The forgoing discussion, the petition is allowed and the order dated 3rd August, 1998 and the criminal proceedings pursuant thereto pending before C.M.M. Delhi are hereby quashed.
