Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3297 (ALL)

ANKIT v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-10-15

VIJAY KUMAR VERMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—By means of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the, Cr.P.C.’), the applicant has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the charge-sheet No. 158 of 2008, under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act, dated 14.11.2008 of case Crime No. 202 of 2008 of P.S. Gagal Hedi, District Saharanpur and to set aside the order dated 9.2.2009, passed by Sri Talevar Singh, the then Judicial Magistrate-III, Court No. 20, Saharanpur in Crl. Case No. 252 of 2009 (State v. Ankit). 2. By the impugned order cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate against the applicant on the aforesaid chargesheet and the applicant has been summoned to face the trial under Section 3/7, E.C. Act. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of this application, in brief, are that an FIR was lodged by Sri S.P. Tyagi, Supply Inspector, Saharanpur (O.P. No. 2 herein), on 16.10.2008 at P.S. Gangal Hedi (Saharanpur), where a case under Section 3/7 E.C. Act was registered at crime No. 202 of 2008 against the applicant Ankit. The allegations made in the FIR, in brief, are that when on 16.10.2008 at about 12.45 p.m., inspection of Manni Da Dhaba, situated at Dehradun Road was made by supply inspector Sri S.P. Tyagi, the accused Ankit s/o Kewal Kishan, r/o Hakikat Nagar, Saharanpur was found using two domestic gas cylinders for commercial purpose at the Dhaba. Both the cylinders were seized and given in the supurdagi of M/s Deep Shikha Gas Agency Saharanpur. After investigation, charge-sheet (annexure-5) was submitted against the applicant-accused Ankit under Section 3/7 E.C. Act, on which cognizance was taken by the learned magistrate vide impugned order dated 9.2.2009, which has been challenged in this proceeding. 4. I have heard arguments at length of Sri Umesh Chandra Mishra, Advocate, appearing for the applicant and AGA for the State. 5. After investigation, charge-sheet (annexure-5) was submitted against the applicant-accused Ankit under Section 3/7 E.C. Act, on which cognizance was taken by the learned magistrate vide impugned order dated 9.2.2009, which has been challenged in this proceeding. 4. I have heard arguments at length of Sri Umesh Chandra Mishra, Advocate, appearing for the applicant and AGA for the State. 5. The first and foremost submission made by learned counsel for the applicant was that the impugned order of taking cognizance against the applicant is wholly illegal and invalid, because the said order has been passed on the printed proforma by filling up the blanks and hence this order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone, as the learned magistrate while taking cognizance on the charge-sheet did not at all apply his mind to the facts of the case and material available in the case diary and on filling up the gaps by Court employee on the printed proforma, the learned magistrate has initialed the impugned order, which cannot be said to the valid order in the eye of law, because judicial order cannot be passed in the manner in which the impugned order has been prepared and passed by the learned magistrate in present case. For this submission, my attention was drawn towards certified copy of the impugned order (paper No. 31). 6. On merit, it was submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that domestic gas cylenders, which were found on the Manni Da Dhaba on the alleged date, time and place, were not being used for commercial purpose, as no regulator for using the domestic gas cylenders was found on the Dhaba and the said cylenders belong to one Praveen Kumar s/o Deshraj, who had kept them at the Dhaba and hence no offence is made out against the applicant. 7. The learned AGA on the other hand, submitted that interference by this Court in the impugned order would not justified, as prima facie offence is made out against the applicant on the basis of the averments made in the FIR. The contention of the learned AGA was that interference by the High Court in the proceeding under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in summoning order can be made only when no offence on the basis of the averments made in the FIR or complaint is made out. 8. The contention of the learned AGA was that interference by the High Court in the proceeding under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in summoning order can be made only when no offence on the basis of the averments made in the FIR or complaint is made out. 8. Having taken the aforesaid statements made by learned counsel for the parties into consideration and after going through the certified copy of the impugned order, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned order, which has been prepared and passed by filling up the blanks on the printed proforma, is wholly illegal and invalid. 9. Paper No. 31 is the certified copy of the impugned order, which has been initiated by Sri Talevar Singh, the then judicial magistrate-III, Saharanpur. This order has been prepared by filling up the blank on the printed proforma. The blanks in the printed proforma appear to have been filled up by some employee of the Court and the learned magistrate has only put his short signature (initial) above the seal of the Court containing his name. All the details of the case including the name, section, P.S., district, case number and address of the applicant have been filled up by some employee of the Court on the printed proforma. Therefore, this type of the order shows non-application of judicial mind on the part of the learned magistrate passing the same. After mentioning the name, parentage, address, case number, section and name of P.S. by filling up the blanks on the printed proforma, the following matter is also printed : ÞeSaus vkjksi i=] dsl Mk;jh o vU; Ái=ksa dk ifjkhyu fd;k vfHk;qDr ds fo:) mDr /kkjkvksa ds vijk/k ds fopkj.k dk i;kZIr ÁFke n`"V;k lk{; gSA vfHk;qDr ds fo:) mDr /kkjkvksa ds vijk/k dk ÁlaKku fy;k tkrk gSA vknsk gqvk fd vkjksi i= ntZ jft"Vj gksos rFkk vfHk;qDr dks }kjk lEeu fnukad ----------- ds fy, ryc fd;k tkosAÞ 10. In the beginning, the name of the Court, case number, state vs. .........under section.......P.S.......District.......case crime No......./2009 also have been printed and blanks have been filled up 5 by mentioning the case number, name of the accused, section, P.S., District etc. by some employee. Below afore cited printed matter, the following sentence has been mentioned in handwriting ÞvfHkqDr vafdr dh fxjrkjh ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Crl. by some employee. Below afore cited printed matter, the following sentence has been mentioned in handwriting ÞvfHkqDr vafdr dh fxjrkjh ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Crl. Writ No. 19559/08 vafdr cuke jkT; esa ikfjr vknsk fnukad 5-11-2008 }kjk vkjksi i= ÁkIr gksus rd LFkfxr FkhAÞ Below aforesaid sentence, the seal of the Court containing name of Sri Talevar Singh, the then Judicial Magistrate-III, has been affixed and the learned magistrate has put his short signature (initial) over his name. The manner in which the impugned order has been prepared shows that the learned magistrate did not at all apply his judicial mind at the time of passing this order and after the blanks were filled up by some employee of the Court, he has put his initial on the seal of the Court. This method of passing judicial order is wholly illegal. If for the shake of argument, it is assumed that the blanks on the printed proforma were filled up in the handwriting of learned magistrate, even then the impugned order would be illegal and invalid, because order of taking cognizance or any other judicial order cannot be passed by filling up blanks on the printed proforma. Although as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Gupta and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (62) ACC 826 : 2008(7) ADJ 7 (NOC), in which reference has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export v. Roshan Lal Agrawal, 2003 (46) ACC 686 (SC), U.P. Pullution Control Board v. Mohand Meakins, AIR 2000 SC1456 and Kanti Bhadra v. State of West Bengal, 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), the magistrate is not required to pass detailed reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, but it does not mean that order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed proforma. At the time of passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, the Court is required to apply judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be sent back to the Court below for passing fresh order on the charge-sheet after applying judicial mind. 11. Consequently, the application under Section 482 is allowed and impugned order is set aside. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be sent back to the Court below for passing fresh order on the charge-sheet after applying judicial mind. 11. Consequently, the application under Section 482 is allowed and impugned order is set aside. The learned magistrate concerned is directed to pass fresh order on the charge-sheet in criminal case No. 252 of 2009 (State v. Ankit) arising out of case crime No. 202 of 2008 of P.S. Gagal Hedi, District Saharanpur. 12. If approved by the Hon’ble Administrative Committee, let a circular letter be issued by the Registrar General directing all the judicial officers in Uttar Pradesh that printed proforma should not be used in passing judicial orders. 13. Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this order to Sri Talevar Singh, the then judicial magistrate Saharanpur through the District Judge concerned for his future guidance. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent by the office immediately to the District Judge Saharanpur, who will seize the blank printed proformas available in the Court of judicial magistrate, Court No. 20 Saharanpur or in any other Court and get them destroyed. ————