Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 39 (CHH)

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Mustak Ahmad Khan

2001-03-29

R.S.GARG

body2001
ORDER R.S. Garg, J. 1. Heard. 2. The applicant/State is aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manendragarh, in Criminal Case No. 142/2000, for the charges punishable under Sections 294 and 324, IPC. 3. The prosecution allegations were that in relation to timings of departure of buses, there was some altercation between the complainant and the accused. The accused after oppressing the complainant, dashed his hand against the body of the vehicle and caused him an injury by finger nails. It appears that because of some settlement out of the Court, the complainant did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. He stated before the Court that because of certain altercation, he had suffered some injuries, but neither the accused dashed his hand against the body of the vehicle, nor caused him injuries by finger nails. The prosecution had examined P.W. 2 Dr. Pooran Singh to prove the nature of the injuries, the doctor observed that the injuries could be caused by fall. It is noteworthy that the complainant did not even prove or support the First Information Report lodged by him. The Trial Court after taking into consideration the conduct of the complainant and the other attending circumstances, acquitted the accused. The Stale is aggrieved by this acquittal. 4. On the merits, after going though the complete records, I am unable to hold that there is any perversity in the order of acquittal. When the complainant himself did not support his own case as stated by him in the FIR, nor he had alleged anything against the accused in his Court statements, it is not expected of a Court of law that just to satisfy the submissions of a Public Prosecutor or Police Officer, it would convict the accused on the basis of the case diary statements. The police is the investigating agency, which only has to look into the investigation part and file the challan. 5. In any case, it is expected of a Public Prosecutor or a Police Officer that before referring the matter to the District Magistrate or Higher Authorities, with a proposal to file an appeal against the acquittal, he would apply his mind not only to the allegations made by the complainant, but to the evidence which is available on the record. In any case, it is expected of a Public Prosecutor or a Police Officer that before referring the matter to the District Magistrate or Higher Authorities, with a proposal to file an appeal against the acquittal, he would apply his mind not only to the allegations made by the complainant, but to the evidence which is available on the record. 6.In the present case, no prudent person, on the face of these allega- tions, would convict the accused. When a proposal is made by the Public Prosecutor, the matter goes to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate is not a small authority and it is expected of him that before granting the permission and forwarding the matter to the Law Department, he shall atleast look into the judgment of acquittal, if he cannot look into the evidence brought on the record. The present matter started from the office of the Public Prosecutor, it crossed the hindrance of the office of the District Magistrate; it sent to the Law Department. The Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, is a department of law knowing people. The officers working there are supposed to know law. The Officer, who approved the case fit for filing an appeal against the acquittal, has to apply his mind not only to the evidence, but the findings recorded by the Trial Court, so also the reasonings adopted by the said Court. The Law Department and its officers are not a Post Office, who simply have to receive the dak and forwarded it to the Government Advocate or Office of the Advocate General. When the matter like this, is placed before the Officers of the Law Department, then, they have to record their satisfaction in the proposal that the acquittal is bad, the findings recorded are perverse and no prudent man would record such findings. I do not know as to what reasonings were given by the Officers of the Law Department for filing this appeal, but whatever those are, those could not be in accordance with law or of a man of ordinary understanding. In the Law Department some Judicial Officers are working, so also some Administrative Officers are also working. The things cannot be left to babus, clerks and peons, so that they go through the records and convince the concerned Officer, or make a note and obtain the signatures of such Officer. In the Law Department some Judicial Officers are working, so also some Administrative Officers are also working. The things cannot be left to babus, clerks and peons, so that they go through the records and convince the concerned Officer, or make a note and obtain the signatures of such Officer. After all, when a proposal for filing an appeal against the acquittal is made, the State has to suffer some expenses and this Court in the case like this has to waste its time. The Officers of Law Department may or may not care for the time of this Court, but atleast must hold themselves responsible towards the public exchequer. In a case like this, when appeal is filed before the High Court, it shows utter negligence and absolute non-understanding on the part of the Officer, who make the proposal for filing the appeal. Whether, the proposal is prepared by some babu or clerk, it is expected of the Dy. Secretary or Addl. Secretary and the Principal Secretary (Law Department) that before forwarding the matter to the Office of the Advocate General, then would atleast look into the matter, if not with a deep probe but atleast cursorily. 7. The complainant has turned hostile. The doctor says that the injuries could be caused by fall. The complainant does not support the FIR lodged by him; then, too the State says that the acquittal is bad. The petition is nothing but a sheer waste of time of the Court. 8. The petition is dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Law and to the Law Minister.