Delhi High Court
Inder Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 26 February, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 16th JANUARY, 2018
DECIDED ON : 26th FEBRUARY, 2018
+ W.P.(CRL) 19/2015 & Crl.M.A. 56/2015 (Stay)
INDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Alok Bhachawat, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner
under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section
482 Cr.P.C. to challenge the legality and correctness of orders dated
16.09.2014 and 03.11.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in
Crl.Rev.P.No.23/2014 whereby costs `3,500/- imposed upon the State
was ordered to be recovered from him.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. It is not at issue that the petitioner - Inder Kumar
was posted as Addl. Public Prosecutor in the Court of learned Addl.
Sessions Judge on the relevant dates. The State had filed revision
petition against the order dated 17.05.2014 of learned ACMM in FIR
No.453/2013 under Sections 380/411 IPC registered at PS Badarpur
against the respondents therein. On 14.07.2014 steps were directed to
be taken in terms of the previous order for service of the respondents
and the case was adjourned to 05.08.2014. On that day
Mr.F.M.Ansari, APP had represented the revisionist / State. Since the
steps were not taken for service of the respondents therein, one last
and final opportunity was granted subject to costs `3,500/- to be
deposited with DLSA. Seemingly, necessary steps were not taken by
the State and finally vide order dated 16.09.2014 costs `3,500/- were
ordered to be recovered from the salary of the present petitioner. It is
relevant to note that on 16.09.2014 Mr.Sukhbeer Singh was the Addl.
Public Prosecutor in the said Court. At the time of imposing costs on
05.08.2014 or subsequent thereafter, costs were not ordered to be
recovered from the petitioner. Only when the State was being
represented by Mr.Sukhbeer Singh, APP on 16.09.2014, the learned
Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the delay in disposal of the
petition for not taking steps was due to the petitioner's fault. No
opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the
impugned order whereby `3,500/- imposed as cost upon the State
were ordered to be recovered from him.
3. It is relevant to note that in other proceedings Crl.M.C.
358/2016, this Court by an order dated 29.01.2016 waived the costs
imposed upon the petitioner. In another Crl.M.C. 2082/2015 decided
on 21.07.2015 again this Court in similar circumstances set aside
orders dated 15.04.2014, 30.09.2014 and 02.12.2014 to the extent of
imposing and realization of cost from the salary of learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor i.e. the present petitioner. The amount deducted
from the salary of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor was ordered to
be remitted back to him. Again, the said order was against the present
petitioner - Inder Kumar. In the said proceedings also, the costs were
imposed upon the State for not filing the process fee for service of the
respondent. It was noted that the learned Judge should not have
imposed costs as was done in the order dated 15.04.2014 and should
not have directed the prosecution for payment of the said costs from
the concerned Addl. Public Prosecutor which showed that the learned
Judge became personal due to certain reasons which were not
necessary to be mentioned in the said order.
4. The impugned orders whereby costs `3,500/- were
ordered to be recovered from the petitioner cannot be sustained being
unreasonable and passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner. The petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated
16.09.2014 and 03.11.2014 are set aside.
5. Pending application also stands disposed of.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 26, 2018 / tr
