Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2112 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar Bhootna v. State of Rajasthan

2011-10-10

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 2. The petitions being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petitions Nos.1898/2011 and 1196/2011 have been filed challenging the order dated 12.05.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Revision Petition No.3/2011, whereby, the learned revisional court has dismissed the revision of the petitioners filed against the accusation of offences read out to them by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar by his order dated 04.02.2011. The accusation which was read out to the petitioners was for the offences under Sections 353, 504, 147 & 149 IPC. The petition being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1195/2011 has been filed directly challenging the order dated 04.02.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the order of accusation is revisable, the learned revisional court has committed a grave error in holding the revision to be not maintainable. He submits that in this case (a) no document was supplied to the petitioners by the Income Tax Officials, (b) no independent witness has been cited in the FIR and (c) the FIR has been filed after a great delay. 4. I have perused the order impugned and have gone through the challan papers. 5. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the2. petitioners that the revision could not have been dismissed as being non maintainable carries force and the approach of the revisional court in rejecting the revision as not maintainable does not appear to be correct. However, I have perused the matter on its merit and on a perusal of the charge-sheet filed against the petitioners and the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar reading out the accusation, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has committed any illegality in stating the substance of accusation to the accused. In the summons triable cases, for which, the petitioners are being tried, it is mandate of law by virtue of Section 251 Cr.P.C. that when the accused appears before the appropriate court substance accusation has to be stated to him. Accordingly, when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate stated the accusation to the petitioners, he committed no illegality. That apart, the argument, which has been raised before this Court regarding offence not being made out is not tenable. Accordingly, when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate stated the accusation to the petitioners, he committed no illegality. That apart, the argument, which has been raised before this Court regarding offence not being made out is not tenable. The charge-sheet which has been filed before the court reveals that there is ample evidence on the record of this case which shows that the Income Tax Officials were obstructed by the accused while they were conducting the survey. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no independent witnesses have been kept does not hold good for the reason that when the Income Tax Officials were conducting the survey in the market, then, it is not expected that any of the independent person from the market would give any evidence in support of the Income Tax Officials. In any event, the proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground. As regards the argument that no documents were supplied to the petitioners by the Income Tax Officials while making the survey, this aspect has gone into by the trial court while finally deciding the case and the FIR filed against the petitioners cannot be quashed on this ground. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners obstructed the Income Tax Officials whilst they were conducting the survey. Whether or not the survey was being conducted with proper authorisation or document is essentialy to be seen by the learned trial Judge at the final stage of the case, as such, this Court cannot be utilised for quashing of the order stating the accusation. 3. 6. I have also perused the FIR filed against the petitioners and there does not seem to be any undue delay in filing of the FIR by virtue of which, it can be said that the proceedings can be quashed. 7. In view of the aforesaid, these misc. petitions as well as stay petitions stand dismissed. 8. However, whatever defence the petitioners wish to raise, they will be at liberty to raise the same at appropriate stage of trial.Petitions dismissed. *******