Dr. Kamal Kishore Kalra vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2008 Latest Caselaw 891 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+               Crl.M.C. No.1628/2007

                Judgment Reserved on       :    07.05.2008
%               Judgment Delivered on      :    02.07.2008



        Dr. Kamal Kishore Kalra                  .... Petitioner
                             Through: Mr.Avadh Kaushik &
                                      Mr. Vivek Rao, Advocates

                                  versus

      State (NCT of Delhi)                           .....Respondent
                                Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma , APP
                                         for the State

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported           Yes
   in the Digest?

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (the Code) is filed to challenge the order dated

16.10.2006 and the notice framed on 28.11.2006 by the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, in respect of a non-cognizable

offence under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, and the

order dated 17.02.2007 passed by the learned Additional

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 1 of 21 Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Criminal Revision Petition No.6/2007,

whereby the aforesaid order dated 28.11.2006 has been

confirmed, and for quashing the proceedings before the learned

MM in the aforesaid case.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned APP in the matter and also perused the trial Court record,

which has been summoned for today.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the receipt of

some secret information that a person will come near Sarai

Rohilla flyover on 27.04.2001 at about 03:00 p.m. with huge

quantity of Govt. medicines which are stolen with intention to sell

them, it laid a trap at about 02:45 p.m. beneath the flyover. At

the appointed time one person came under the flyover holding

one bag in his each hand. The informant identified him. On this

the said person namely Ashok s/o Kesar Das was overpowered by

the police and some medicines bearing the inscription "MCD

Supply Not For Sale" were recovered from his possession. When

he was asked to produce ownership proof, he was unable to do so

and upon intensive interrogation, he told that all these medicines

were stolen from MCD Dispensary and that he had come to sell

them. The police registered the First Information Report

No.177/2001 against the accused Ashok under Section 411 IPC.

The statement of the accused Ashok was recorded under Section

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 2 of 21 161 of the Code, who disclosed that more persons were involved

in this business. At his instance further quantities of such like

medicines were recovered from his house and on 29.04.2001

accused Anil Kumar was arrested on the identification of accused

Ashok. Thereafter, upon further further investigation of both

accused Ashok and Anil Kumar, their other companions including

the petitioner herein, namely, Dr. Kamal Kishore Kalra were also

traced out. The petitioner was arrested on 01.05.2001 on the

identification of accused Ashok and Anil Kumar and at their

instance a huge quantity of such like medicines were recovered

from their possession.

4. It appears that the charge under Section 411, upon

further inquiry, could not be sustained since the MCD hospitals

and dispensaries which had been disclosed by the accused as

being the ones from where the theft had taken place did not

report any case of theft. Consequently, the police while filing the

"Charge Sheet" dated 27.11.2001 before the learned Magistrate

stated as follows:

"Since, huge quantity of Govt. medicines as per detail have been recovered from the accused persons in this case regarding which no accused has produced any ownership proof or evidence of their possession in respect of the recovered medicines and hence, it is prayed to this court that section 411 IPC may please be cancelled and cognizance U/s 103 D.P. Act

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 3 of 21 may please be taken. All five accused are on bail granted by the court."

5. On 07.01.2002, the learned magistrate took

cognizance against all the accused persons in respect of the

offence under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Act, which is a non-

cognizable offence. The order taking cognizance records "Fresh

challan received. Seen. Be checked and registered. I take

cognizance of the offence and (as) (sic) shown in the charge

sheet u/s 190 (1) (a) CrPC." Consequently, it appears that the

learned Magistrate treated the charge sheet/challan as a

complaint of facts which constitutes an offence.

6. At the stage of framing of notice, the petitioner raised

an objection before the learned Magistrate contending that the

investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer was illegal

and unwarranted since the alleged offence under Section 103 of

the Delhi Police Act is a non-cognizable offence and the police

could not have investigated into a non-cognizable offence without

the prior permission of the concerned Magistrate, which

permission was not obtained by the Investigating Officer (I.O.).

Therefore, the whole exercise of investigation done by the IO is

illegal, null and void and that the accused persons deserve to be

discharged in the matter. This objection of the petitioner was

considered and rejected by the learned Magistrate by his

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 4 of 21 impugned order dated 16.10.2006. The learned Magistrate,

thereafter, framed the notice vide order dated 28.11.2006, which

is also impugned before me on the same ground i.e. that the

investigation conducted by the police was illegal and void. The

challenge to the order dated 28.11.2006, whereby the notice was

framed in Criminal Revision No.06/2007 before the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, has also proved unsuccessful

and the same has also been impugned in this petition.

7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the

petitioner has relied on the following decisions: -

1. Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) & Anr. Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr.

(1995) 6 SCC 194

2. Siddanagouda Vs. State of Karnataka 1998 Cri. L.J. 2162

3. Mam Chand & Ors. Vs. State 78(1999) DLT 2

4. Ajit Singh Vs. State 39(1989) DLT 468

5. Surinder Kumar. Vs. State 1997 JCC 45

6. Brahm Dutt & Ors. Vs. State & Ors.

1996 JCC 183

8. On the other hand, submission of Mr. Sharma, learned

APP, is that Section 2 (d) of the Code defines 'complaint' to mean

any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 5 of 21 view to his taking action under the Code, that some person,

whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does

not include police report. However, the explanation to Section 2

(d) states that "A report made by a police officer in a case which

discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable

offence shall be deemed to be a complaint, and the police officer

by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the

complainant." The further submission of Mr. Sharma is that in

this case the learned Magistrate has treated the challan/charge

sheet filed by the police as a complaint and has taken cognizance

of the same, which is also evident from his order dated

07.01.2002. Section 190 (1) (a) states that any Magistrate of the

First Class and any Magistrate of the Second Class specially

empowered in this behalf may take cognizance of any offence

upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitutes such

offence. He also relies on the decision of this Court in Crl. Rev. P.

181/2007 "Chaman Prakash vs. State" in support of his

contention.

9. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties

and perused the impugned orders passed by the learned

Magistrate as well as by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in

revision proceedings and upon a consideration of the contents of

the FIR as well as the "Charge Sheet" filed before the learned

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 6 of 21 Magistrate and the case law cited before me, I am of the view

that there is no merit in this petition and the same deserves to be

dismissed. A perusal of the FIR bearing No.177/2001 shows that

the allegations made therein do constitute a cognizable offence.

The relevant extract from the said FIR reads as follows: -

".......... I H.C. Together with Ct. Ravi Dutt No.783/N and Ct. Mahabir Singh No.1642/N were on patrolling at about 2.20 P.M. in North District at Vaishno Mata Mandir. At this time some reliable informant came to Ct. Ravi Dutt No.783/N and informed him that a person will come near Sarai Rohilla Flyover today at about 3.00 P.M. together with huge quantity of Govt. Medicines which are stolen/theft with the intention to sell them..............."

"........... This H.C. Constituted a raiding party with his accompanied staff together with the said informant and held a trap at about 2.45 P.M. beneath the flyover. At about 3.00 P.M. a middle aged man came on feet under the flyover and started waiting there for somebody. This man was holding one bag in his each hand. The said reliable informant identifying that man informed the raiding party by way of giving signs that this is the said person. On this I H.C. Over powered that person with the help of raiding party. After interrogation, it was revealed that the name of the said person is Ashok S/o Kesar Dass R/o RZ-25, Arya Mohalla, New Basti, Nangloi, Delhi. A while coloured bag was recovered from the right hand of Ashok in which four corrugated packets were found. It was found on the opening of these packets that each packet was containing 25 bottles of medicines Kufryl Syrup and MCD supply not for sale was written on each packet and

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 7 of 21 same stamp was also inscribed on bottles.

A green coloured bag was recovered from the left hand of the said person and three packets were found in the said bag and from each packet, when opened, 40 bottles of TONOFERON DROPS were recovered. On these bottles and packets stamp of "M.C.D.

supply not for sale" wee inscribed. Ashok was asked to produce ownership proof of the said recovered Govt. medicines but he could not produce any proof and on intensive interrogation, he told that all these medicines are stolen from MCD Dispensary and I had come today to sell them."

"............ Thus, accused Ashok S/o Kesar Dass R/o RZ-25, Arya Mohalla, New Basti, Nangloi, Delhi has comitted an offence u/s 411 IPC by keeping stolen Govt. Medicines in his possession. Hence, this complaint is being sent through Ct. Ravi Dutt to the police station. Kindly register the case and inform me."

10. Section 411 IPC states that "Whoever dishonestly

receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason

to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend

to three years, or with fine, or with both". Therefore, it cannot be

said that the allegations contained in the FIR do not constitute

the offence under Section 411 IPC, since the allegation is that the

accused Ashok was possessed of substantial quantities of

medicines with the stamp "MCD Supply Not For Sale", and that

Ashok was asked to produce ownership proof of the recovered

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 8 of 21 medicines but he could not produce the same, and upon

interrogation he is alleged to have stated that all these medicines

are stolen from MCD Dispensary and that he had come to sell the

same. The offence under Section 411 IPC, which carries a

sentence upto three years imprisonment, is a cognizable offence.

Consequently, the police was empowered to investigate the same

under Section 154 read with Section 156 of the Code. In the so

called "Charge Sheet" filed by the police before the learned

Magistrate, it was stated that "during investigation, SI prepared a

site plan of the spot after visiting there and accused Ashok (Col.

No.4) was interrogated and statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. was

recorded. Accused Ashok confessed in his statement that some

more persons are also involved in this business and he can help

the police by getting these people apprehended and medicines

recovered. Hence, SI obtained police custody of the accused

Ashok from the court and on his instance 55 corrugated packets

each containing 50 coscofin cough zinctius and 10 corrugated

packets each containing 108 bottles Furoxon Syp were recovered

from his house and on 29.04.2001 accused Anil Kumar Col. No.4

Sr. No.2 was arrested on the identification of accused Ashok Col.

No.4 Sr. No.1 on whose instance a huge quantity of Govt.

medicines as per list of different names were recovered and after

obtaining police custody remand of both the accused from the

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 9 of 21 court till 02.05.2001, their other companions were traced out. In

this case accused Kamal Kishore Kalra Col. No.4 Sr. No.4, Om

Prakash Col. No.4 Sr. No.3 and Mukesh Mutreza Col. No.4 Sr. No.5

were arrested on 01.05.2001 on the identification of accused

Ashok and Anil and on their instance a huge quantity of Govt.

medicines as per list were recovered from their possession and

after making inquiry their statements were recorded and

statements of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded and

enquiry was conducted from the persons named by the accused.

Since, the huge quantity of Govt. medicines as per detail have

been recovered from the accused persons in this case regarding

which no accused has produced any ownership proof or evidence

of their possession in respect of recovered medicines and hence,

it is prayed to this court that section 411 IPC may please be

cancelled and cognizance U/s 103 D.P. Act may please be taken.

All five accused are on bail granted by the Court".

11. The said "Charge Sheet" further discloses that upon

further investigation in the form of letters written to the officers

of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Maternity Centre

Haiderpur and Polyclinic Kishan Ganj and report from Tihar Jail,

regarding theft from where the medicines were stated to be

stolen, and reports after physical verification of stock were

collected, on verification it had been found that no case of theft

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 10 of 21 had been registered at any place. Pertinently even this

information with regard to no theft of medicines being reported

from the aforesaid hospitals and dispensaries came to light as a

result of the very investigation, which is now questioned by the

petitioner. Therefore, in my view, the trial Court as well as the

learned Additional Sessions judge rightly rejected the contention

of the petitioner founded upon Section 155(2) of the Code, which

states that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable

case when the order of a magistrate having power to try such

case or commit the case for trial.

12. What is relevant and material to examine is, whether,

at the time of registration of FIR, the allegations made therein

disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, which

empowers the police to carry out its investigation. If during the

course of investigation, and as a result thereof, it transpires that

the commission of a cognizable offence cannot be sustained and,

instead, the commission of a non-cognizable office is disclosed it

is only proper that the "report made by the police officer in a

case which discloses after investigation, the commission of a

non-cognizable offence" is treated as a complaint made by the

police officer by whom such report is made. This is what is

provided for by Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code, which

defines the expression 'complaint'. From the said Explanation it

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 11 of 21 is evident that the Legislature was conscious of the fact that

there may be instances where, though the allegations contained

in the FIR may disclose the commission of a cognizable offence,

after investigation, the report made by the police officer discloses

the commission of only a non-cognizable offence and, therefore,

in such situations such police report is deemed to be a complaint

by the concerned police officer. It is also evident from the order

passed by the learned Magistrate that he too was conscious of

the fact that the report filed by the police, namely, the so-called

"Charge Sheet" was a deemed complaint and, therefore, he took

the cognizance of the offence under Section 103 of the Delhi

Police Act "upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute

such offence". Since the complaint was by a public servant

acting or purporting to act on the discharge of his official duties,

the Magistrate while taking cognizance has dispensed with the

examination of the complainant and the witnesses under Section

200 of the Code.

13. The decisions cited by the petitioner also do not

support the proposition canvassed by him in this case. Rupan

Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) (supra) has been merely relied upon to refer

to the principles set out by the Supreme Court in State of

Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 for the exercise of

powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 12 of 21 inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court

to prevent abuse of process of Court, or otherwise to secure the

ends of justice. Specific reference is made two situations

discussed in Bhajan Lal (supra) i.e. categories 2 & 4, which reads

as follows:

"(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any , accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer within an oder of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

14. Both these categories of cases require that the FIR

and other materials accompanying the FIR do not disclose or

constitute the commission of a cognizable offence. However,

that is not the position in the facts of this case. As I have already

indicated hereinabove, the allegations in the FIR at the time of

its registration did disclose the commission of a cognizable

offence under Section 411 IPC. It was only subsequently, during

the course of and as a result of further investigation, that it was

learnt that the offence under Section 411 could not be sustained

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 13 of 21 and only a non-cognizable offence under Section 103 of the Delhi

Police Act could be sustained. Section 103 of Delhi Police Act

reads as under: -

"103. Possession of property of which no satisfactory account can be given - Whoever has in his possession or conveys in any manner, or offers for sale or pawn, anything which there is reason to believe is stolen property or property fraudulently obtained, shall if he fails to account for such possession or act to the satisfaction of the Metropolitan Magistrate, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, or with both."

15. The decision of the Karnataka High Court in

Siddanagouda (supra) is also of no avail since the said decision

does not disclose factual matrix similar to the one in hand. It

appears that the FIR in that particular case being Crime

No.191/94 was registered under Section 171E read with Section

109 IPC, which is a non-cognizable offence. I may notice that the

law report misprints the Section as 171(4). In fact there is no

such provision in the IPC. From a perusal of the judgment it is

clear that the offence alleged against the accused was one under

Section 171E IPC, which is non-cognizable. As noticed

hereinabove, in the present case, the FIR that had been

registered was in respect of a cognizable offence and the

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 14 of 21 allegations contained in the FIR did disclose the commission of a

cognizable offence. The decision of this Court in Mam Chand

(supra) is also distinguishable on facts. In that case the Court

came to the conclusion that "Once, on the circumstances

prevalent at the time of registration of the case, it is evident that

a cognizable offence is not made out, permitting the police to

first register a cognizable case, carry out investigations and

ultimately if it is found that a cognizable offence was not made

out, would be giving a long rope to the police". Therefore, in

Mam Chand (Supra) the present case, the Court was of the

opinion that even at the time of registration of the FIR, the facts

did not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, which is

not the case in hand. The observation of this Court: "The nature

of the offence is to be gathered from the facts available at the

relevant time and if there is a doubt as to whether a cognizable

offence is made out or not, the police can report it to the

Magistrate concerned and obtain appropriate orders. On the one

hand, no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution by adopting

a safer course and on the other it will eliminate the possibility of

misuse of power by the police. This approach will also be in

consonance with the spirit and intention of Section 155 of the

Code", does not come to the aid of the petitioner, since the

allegations in the FIR in the present case left no manner of doubt

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 15 of 21 that the commission of an offence under Section 411 IPC was

disclosed. Moreover, this decision does not take into account the

Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code, as aforesaid. In Ajit

Singh (supra) though the challan was filed filed under Section

338, which is a cognizable offence, the Magistrate converted it

into a non-congnizable offence under Section 287 and took

cognizance. This Court quashed the proceedings under Section

482 Cr.P.C. It was held that simply because the case was

registered under Section 338 IPC, which is a cognizable offence,

the police could not investigate the offence which actually fell

under Section 287 IPC. The decision of this Court in Ajit Singh

(supra) is also, in my view, of no assistance to the petitioner for

the reason that it fails to take notice of the Explanation to Section

2(d) of the Code, which deems the police report to be a complaint

in a case where, after investigation the commission of a non-

cognizable offence is disclosed.

16. No doubt the police cannot assume the power to

investigate into an offence when it has none, by merely

registering a First Information Report in respect of a cognizable

offence. Therefore, what would be relevant to examine is not

merely the Section under which the FIR is registered but the

contents of the FIR itself.

17. In Surinder Kumar (supra), FIR was registered

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 16 of 21 against the accused under Section 308 and 323 IPC. The offence

under Section 323 was non-cognizable. The Court, relyion upon

the undisputed facts of the case, particularly the MLC of the

injured which showed that the injuries were simple, and also the

fact that there was a cross-complaint under Section 324 IPC

against the complainant, which showed that there was a scuffle

between the two parties without any intentions to either side to

cause such injuries which may result the death of the victim,

concluded that the material before the Additional Sessions Judge

was not such which could give rise to grave suspicion against the

petitioner of his having the intention or knowledge to cause such

an injury that, had death been caused, the petitioner would have

been guilty of culpable homicide. Therefore, the Court examined

the presence/absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute

the offence under Section 308 IPC and concluded that the said

offence was not made out and, therefore, the petitioner could not

have been charged for the offence punishable under Section

308/34 IPC. In paragraph 9 of the judgment this Court held as

follows: -

"9. Coming to the second question as to whether the petitioners could be tried for an offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC, I find that the offence Under Section 323 is a non- cognizable offence and investigation by the Police into the case involving non-cognizable offence is

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 17 of 21 not permissible without permission of the Magistrate. Admittedly, no permission has been taken by the Police to investigate into the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. It is contended by Mr. Behl that as the FIR related to an offence not only under Section 323 IPC but also under Section 308, there was no bar in the police investigating the case. In my opinion, the argument has no basis. When the case is actually registered against an accused in respect of both cognizable and non-cognizable offences and ultimately it is found that the cognizable offence is not made out, it may mean giving long hand to the police in first registering cases for cognizable offences which ultimately may not fall within the definition of such a case. I am, therefore, of the view that the police having not taken permission of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the proceedings against the petitioners under Section 323 cannot be continued."

18. Firstly, I may notice that the Court came to the

conclusion that even on the basis of the material on record, the

offence under Section 308 IPC could not be made out. That being

the position the registration of the case under Section 308 IPC

itself was bad and had been resorted to merely to enable the

police to undertake investigation without the permission from the

Magistrate. That is not the case in hand. Secondly with due

respect, the said decision also does not take notice of the

Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code. I, therefore, do not

consider myself to be bound by the view expressed by the Court

in that decision. The decision of this Court in Brahm Dutt &

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 18 of 21 Ors. (supra) is also on the same lines, as the decision in Mam

Chand (supra). Once again this decision does not take notice of

the Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code and, therefore, I do

not consider myself bound to follow the same, particularly in the

facts of this case.

19. On the other hand, I find support support in the view

that I take from the decision of this Court in Chaman Prakash

(supra). The petitioner had been accused of committing the

offences under Section 323/341/354/506 IPC arising out of an

incident where the complainant alleged that the petitioner had

slapped her and sought to intimidate her. The case of the

petitioner/accused was that the allegations in the FIR taken as a

whole, did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence

and the inclusion of Section 323/354/506 IPC was merely to

confer jurisdiction on the police to investigate into the matter as

otherwise, the so-called injuries were simple in nature. The trial

Court framed the notice in respect of offences, including the

offence under Section 354 IPC on 08.09.2006. That order was

appealed against before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

who directed the deletion of the charge under Section 354 IPC.

On the strength of this appellate decision, it was contended by

the petitioner before the trial Court that the surviving charge

under Section 323 could not be framed as the investigation was

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 19 of 21 conducted without compliance of the mandatory provision of

Section 155(2) of the Code. That submission of the petitioner

was rejected by the Courts below. The petitioner Chaman

Prakash also relied on the decision of this Court in Brahm Dutt

(supra) and Kanshi Ram v. State 2000 (2) AD (Crl.) DHC 528, in

support of his submissions. This Court rejected the submission of

the petitioner. Para 8 of the said decision is relevant and reads

as follows: -

"8. I am not persuaded to accept the line of reasoning in the cases cited on behalf of the petitioner. Undoubtedly there are certain observations in those cases suggestive of the entire investigation being vitiated if the court discovering, at a later stage that no cognizable offence is made out. However each case had to be decided on the facts and attendant circumstances. In this case the court in the first instance did not accept the submission that only a non-cognizable offence was made out.

Further Section 460(2) lists out irregularities which vitiate the proceedings.

A reading of this would show that if the Magistrate proceeds to make an order to investigate the offence, under Section 155 into the incident which may turn out to be one involving a non-cognizable offence, that does not by itself vitiate the proceedings. This is further strengthened by Section 155(4), which provides that if two offences, one non-cognizable, and the other cognizable, are alleged, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable. Such being the situation investigation and further proceedings in respect of an FIR, where eventually only

Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 20 of 21 non-cognizable offences can be pressed, would not vitiate the entire proceedings.

There is no taint of illegality attached to the investigation. This aspect was not discussed in the judgments cited; they did not consider the impact and effect of Section 460, or Section 155(4)"

20. I find myself in complete agreement with the

aforesaid view taken by this Court. For the aforesaid reasons, I

dismiss this petition, leaving the parties to bear their own

respective costs. Trial court record be returned forthwith.

                                            (VIPIN SANGHI)
                                                JUDGE
July 02, 2008
RSK




Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007                                            page 21 of 21