Delhi High Court
Ghanshyam Dass vs State on 18 August, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 13th August, 2010
Date of Order: 18th August, 2010
+ Crl. M.C. No. 2598/2010, Crl. M.A. No. 13649/2010
% 18.08.2010
GHANSHYAM DASS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr A.S. Rana & Mr Rajiv Rana, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr Sunil Sharma, APP
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. By the present petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 23 rd
June, 2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, partly allowing the
Revision Petition of the petitioner.
2. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of deciding this petition are
that in FIR No. 360 of 1996, registered at Police Station Mehrauli under
Sections 420/34 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC, police filed a charge-sheet on
completion of investigation. A supplementary charge-sheet was also filed by
the police. In the charge-sheet police had mentioned names of several
persons in Column No. 2, who were bonafide subsequent purchasers of the
plots of land. Police could find material for trial only against accused Ran
Singh, Satbir Singh, Dharam Singh and Karam Singh.
3. Vide order dated 5th May, 2001, the learned M.M. directed for issuance
of summons to the accused persons sent for trial. It seems that the ministerial
staff of the Court of learned M.M. issued summons to each and every person
whose name was mentioned in the charge-sheet including those whose
names were in Column No. 2. Vide order dated 4th February, 2008, the Court
of M.M. observed that his predecessor had ordered for summoning Ran Singh,
Satbir Singh, Karam Singh and Dharam Singh, who were the persons allegedly
involved in unauthorized possession of the land, without consent or
permission of lawful owner and who further sold the land by forging
documents. No offence was made out against those persons who purchased
the plots of land from these persons as they were the victims and they had no
hand in forgery or cheating and that is why their names were mentioned in
Column No. 2, but the ministerial wrongfully issued summons of the persons
mentioned in Column No. 2, without any directions from the Court of M.M.
Thus he discharged all those persons and ordered that process issued against
the persons named in Column No. 2 stood withdrawn. He also discussed
whether charge was made out against those persons or not and after
discussion found that no charge was made out against Karamvir Singh and
Satbir Singh and hence Karamvir Singh and Satbir Singh were also discharged.
4. Against this order of MM, a Revision Petition was preferred by the
complainant and the learned ASJ found that the order of learned MM
dropping proceeding against persons mentioned in Column No. 2 wrongfully
summoned by ministerial staff was correct. However, the ASJ did not agree
that Satbir Singh and Karamvir Singh were not liable to be tried as no charge
was made out. He after considering the material on record came to
conclusion that Satbir Singh and Karamvir Singh were also liable to be
charged for appropriate offences as made out from the charge-sheet.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the persons who were
subsequent purchasers should also have been summoned as accused since
they purchased the property knowing fully well that the value of the property
was much higher but it was being sold to them at lesser rate and the lesser
rate was being quoted only because the persons selling the land were not the
actual owners.
6. The court cannot raise such presumptions while considering charge.
Charge has to be considered on the basis of facts as appearing on record. It is
undisputed fact that the persons mentioned in Column No. 2 were those
persons against whom police had not been able to find any evidence of their
conniving with the other accused persons and they were bonafide purchasers
of the plots. The Trial Court and the Court of ASJ were, therefore, right in
holding that subsequent purchasers of plots were not liable to be prosecuted
as no offence was found of their involvement in either cheating or conspiracy.
I am fully agreement with the view taken by the Trial Court and the Court of
learned ASJ. I find no reason to entertain this petition. The petition is hereby
dismissed.
18th August, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm
