AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.L. Vaidya, J.—This Court, exercising suo moto powers u/s 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, issued show cause notice to the State as to why the proceedings in case No. 1376-1/94, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharamshala, be not quashed. Ms. Shyama Dogra, learned Deputy Advocate General, who accepted notice on behalf of the State, appeared before the court and made submissions. In order to appreciate the real controversy arising out of the proceedings pending disposal before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharmashala, as referred to above, the facts which are not disputed may at first instance be dealt with.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, dharmahsala, on 25th March, 1994, was on traffic checking duty and at about 5.00 P.M. at a place which is not legible from the challan form, one Ranjit Singh son of Shri Des Raj, who was driving vehicle JKS 9114, was challenged u/s 192/196/181 of the Motor Vehicle Act, for driving the said vehicle, which was a Maruti Van without R.C., I.C. and driving licence. This Ranjit Singh was prosecuted at the spot and the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the following order:
Accused failed to produce any document including his own driving licence. He was given time to produce RC IC and the driving licence. He showed his inability to produce any document and pleaded guilty. On his pleading guilty he is convicted under Sections 196/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- only.
The fine of Rs. 3000/- was paid by Shri Ranjit Singh and a receipt in token of the receipt of fine was issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
After convicting the accused, as referred to above, the Magistrate passed on that very day the following order:
25-3-1994
Accused ... has that he has no RC, IC and his driving licence. He was given an opportunity to produce his documents. He failed despite opportunity is given. To give the accused an opportunity he is allowed more time to produce the documents. The accused has been directed to furnish his personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- each-. The accused is remanded in judicial custody till 29-3-1994.
Sd/- CJM
Before the aforesaid order was dictated the following words were also referred on the back side of the challan form:
vehicle impounded
On 29th March, 1994 this Ranjit Singh Sharma accused was produced in custody of constables Moti Ram and Dev Raj before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala. The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 29-3-1994 is also reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience:
Present: Shri V.K. Chaudhry ADA for the State. Accused Ranjit Sharma with counsel S/Shri S.D. Sharma and Kuldeep Chaudhry Advocates and in custody of constables Moti Ram and Dev Raj.
The accused could not produce his driving licence, Insurance of the vehicle nor the valid registration in his name nor he could produce any document/affidavit that he has purchased the said vehicle bearing No. JKS-9114. As per the registration certificate produced M/s Sabhiari Pacie and Trading Company Corporation Jammu Cantt. endorsement on the R.C. is also made by the Registering Authority(M), Pathankot, on 28-2-1992 and NOC was issued by the Regional Transport Authority Jammu on 16-11-1991. Despite the vehicle is being registered by the Registering Authority, Pathankot, but the vehicle still bears the registration number of the State of Jammu and Kashmir i.e. JKS -9114. The genuineness of the R.C. is highly doubtful. The Regional Transport Authority (M), Pathankot, and Regional Transport Authority, Sirinagar be issued notices to verify the true ownership and the registration of the said vehicle. D.O. letters be sent to all the three agencies.
Shri S.D. Sharma has moved an application for the release of accused and he is ready to furnish the surety, he has filed revenue papers about the surety property as well. These papers are required to be verified from the Tehsildar of the area. These papers be sent to the Tehsildar Kangra to verify the same.
After taking into consideration the facts deposed before me by the accused he is admitted on ad interim bail for a period of one month. He is to report to this Court on 29-4-1994. The accused has furnished his personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 1000/which are attested and accepted by me till 29-4-1994. By that time the report of the RTA''s and Tehsildar Kangra with regard to the R.C. and revenue papers filed by the surety of the accused be also called. He be released from custody if not required in (sic) any other case. The accused is directed to appear on 29-4-1994 alongwith his driving licence and insurance certificate.
Thereafter, the enquiry started. The Regional Transport Authority, Sirinagar as well as Regional Transport Authority, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, were issued letters pertaining to the verification of ownership and registration particulars of the vehicle under reference.
The Regional Transport Authority, Jammu, sent reply to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharmashala, vide letter dated 27-5-1994. It was informed by him that vehicle No. JKS 9114 was initially registered in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta son of Shri Basakhi Ram c/o M/s Arun Electric Shalamar Road, Jammu. I was transferred in the name of M/s United Instrument, Moti Bazar Jammu on 12-9-1989 and thereafter it was again transferred in the name of M/s Satwari Finance & Trading Corporation, Jammu Cantt. on 11-2-1991. It was further informed that the vehicle had been issued NOC for Registering Authority Pathankot (Punjab) on 16-11-1991 by that office as per that office records.
In so far as the Regional Transport Authority, Pathankot (Gurdaspur) was concerned, nothing in writing was received in reply as per the records of the lower court.
The original registration certificate brought on record by the accused recorded Shri Rajesh Kumar son of Shri Rajinder Kumar, resident of Narot Colony, Pathankot, to be the owner of this vehicle and this entry has been made by the Registering Authority(M), Pathankot on 28-2-1992. There is nothing on record to disbelieve this entry.
This Ranjit Singh Sharma moved two applications for his bail which are on record and are dated 26-3-1994 and 28-3-1994 respectively. He was ordered to be released on bail vide order dated 29-3-1994, referred to above, and that too on interim bail for a period of one month. This interim bail was extended till 30-5-1994 as per orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 29-4-1994. Thereafter, the proceedings were adjourned for 30-5-1994 onwards for receipt of the reports from the various agencies, referred to earlier. During the proceedings on one date the accused absented himself and then his presence was procured and the accused presented himself before the court on 6-6-1994, through his lawyer the proceedings were still pending disposal before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and have not yet been finalised.
In the mean time this Ranjit Sharma, through his counsel, preferred an application on 29-4-1994 as well as on 27.10.94 for the release of the vehicle in his favour. In this application it was alleged by Shri Ranjit Sharma that the impounded vehicle be released in his favour and he was ready to give any undertaking on any condition for its production, as required by the Court. This application was accompanied by the Special Power of Attorney issued by one Rajesh Kumar son of Shri Rajinder Kumar resident of Pathankot, in whose name the vehicle stood entered as owner in the RC, referred to earlier. In the special power of attorney executed by Rajesh Kumar in favour of Ranjit Sharma son of Shri Des Raj, resident of village Jandwal, the executant authorised Ranjit Sharma to ply the vehicle JKS 9114 and to receive all the money and to get the vehicle on Supurdari, make application for the Supurdari in any court of law, to make statement on oath, give proper receipt and get the vehicle from the police station.
The aforesaid application for release of the vehicle was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 28-10-1994 and on that date the applicant did not appear. Accordingly, the application was dismissed for non- appearance of the applicant.
This Ranjit Sharma subsequently preferred another application dated 24-11-1994 for the release of the aforesaid vehicle impounded by the court and which was lying in the police Station, Palampur it was alleged in this application that the applicant was the owner of the vehicle, having power of attorney of the original owner. It was further asserted that the vehicle has already suffered a huge loss and damage and in case the same was not released, it may become a junk as a result of which a loss of about Rs. 1,00,000/- has been caused to the applicant. The applicant offered to furnish security bond of any amount for release of the vehicle and was ready to produce the same in case any dispute about the ownership of the vehicle would arise or in any other matter, as directed by the court.
The trial Magistrate, after calling for the report of the ADA, ordered the release of the vehicle in favour of the applicant-accused on furnishing a Supurdari, bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs). The Supurdari bond was furnished by the applicant which were accepted and attested by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the vehicle was then ordered to be released in favour of the applicant-accused.
The aforesaid facts have been taken from the record of the lower court. On the basis of the aforesaid background and the arguments submitted by the learned Deputy Advocate General, this Court is of the view that the entire proceedings in case No. 1376-1/94, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamsala, after invoking the suo moto revisional power u/s 397 Code of Criminal Procedure deserves to be quashed.
It has been proved on record that this Ranjit Singh was prosecuted under Sections 192/196/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving the vehicle without R.C., without I.c. and without the driving licence. As per records he pleaded guilty and was convicted for the aforesaid offence and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- which fine was paid by the accused on 25th March, 1994 It has come on record that the vehicle was impounded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. There is no order of confiscation at all. The order of sentence is for payment of fine alone and no sentence of imprisonment has been awarded. This only mean that the prosecution, after summary trial, was completed whereby the accused was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine which he had paid on that very day, meaning thereby the case stood finally disposed of on that very day.
Now the proceedings, being taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, appear to be regarding the enquiry pertaining to the ownership of the vehicle. In order to have that enquiry conducted the Magistrate put Ranjit Singh under judicial custody and ordered his release by granting him interim bail, as referred to earlier.
Order dated 25-3-1994 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, after completing the aforesaid summary trial, is the beginning of the illegalities committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Vide this order the Magistrate observed that to give the accused an opportunity, he is allowed more time to produce the documents and the accused had been directed to furnish his personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- each and the accused was remanded to judicial custody till 29-3-1994.
Needless to say, the accused could be remanded to judicial custody in case he was required for the commission of any offence. The order is silent to that effect. The accused was afforded time to produce documents and in the mean time was ordered to be kept in judicial custody and was directed to furnish personal and surety bonds. Admittedly, the accused was kept in judicial custody on the basis of this order and on 29th March, 1994, he was produced before the ''Chief Judicial Magistrate.
On the basis of an application for bail filed on behalf of the accused Ranjit Sharma, he was ordered to be released on bail for a period of one month as, according to the Magistrate, the accused had furnished personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 1000-/ each. Earlier on 25-3-1994 the accused was directed to furnish personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 2000/- each. There is no specific order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate where the amount of Rs. 2000/- had been reduced. Any way, the fact remains that the accused remained in judicial custody from 25-3-1994 to 29-3-1994, when he was admitted to ad-interim bail.
As referred to above, there is nothing in the order dated 25-3-1994 as to under what provisions of law the accused had been remanded to judicial custody and he had been asked to furnish personal and surety bonds.
The accused could be detained in case some criminal case pertaining to this vehicle was pending against him. He could be put under arrest in case the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the commission of any offence bailable/non-bailable against the accused. He could have been arrested in case some case was registered against him by the police or the accused was required for the commission of any offence having been complained of against him by any private individual and the court could act in that complaint in the manner provided under the law.
The facts so revealed from the trial court''s record nowhere gave any occasion for the Chief Judicial Magistrate to act in that manner.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that ''no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law''. Here in the present case the violation of this Article is writ large. Article 20 of the Constitution of Indian provides that ''no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once''. The offence under the Motor Vehicles Act, under which the accused was prosecuted, terminated with his conviction and sentence referred to earlier.
It cannot be even imagined that the Chief Judicial Magistrate of an experience is not having any knowledge of the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution which dealt with the Fundamental Rights of a person.
It may be correct that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was under belief that the vehicle involved in the case could be a stolen property and the present accused either could be a thief or receiver of the stolen property but apart from some apprehension developing in the mind of the Chief Judicial Magistrate there was nothing on record to infer those aspects. The entire proceedings revealed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate wanted to enquire about the ownership of the vehicle in order to assert whether the accused was connected with such ownership or not. There is no doubt that the magistrate was within his power to enquire into that aspect of the matter. The vehicle had been impounded and this enquiry could be conducted at a time when some person had applied for its release or even earlier to that also. In order to associate the accused in the alleged enquiry the Magistrate put him under judicial custody.
There is no dispute that rule of law prevails in this country. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in this particular case appeared to have some bona fide intention to enquire about the ownership of the vehicle. To achieve that end the enquiry was to be conducted in accordance with law. The means to achieve the goal must be lawful also. In the present case the end to be achieved by the enquiry could be called lawful one but to achieve that purpose, illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional ways had been adopted.
A Judge/Magistrate is to condemn the crime and not to hate the criminal it is a case where the Chief Judicial Magistrate not only acted illegally but also in violation of the specific provisions of the Constitution in putting the accused under judicial custody which could amount to confinement not in accordance with law.
The facts of the case revealed that the vehicle was released in favour of accused Ranjit Singh on the basis of some power of attorney issued in his favour by Shri Raj Kumar who was recorded to be owner of the vehicle in the R.C., as discussed above. That means the Chief Judicial Magistrate released the vehicle after satisfying himself on the basis of the R.C. and power of attorney of the owner. This entire process could have been gone into without detaining the accused Ranjit Singh on the basis of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Learned Deputy Advocate General has been very clear in her submissions that so far as the conduct of the summary trial and its conclusion was concerned there does not appear to be any illegality but, according to her, the follow up action thereafter cannot be said to be coming within the purview of any law for the time being in force.
Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion the entire proceedings in Case No. 1376-1/94, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, being the result of exercising a jurisdiction not vested in the Chief Judicial Magistrate, are quashed. The bail bonds furnished by Ranjit Singh stand discharged.
However, it may be specifically pointed out that the State or any other person would be at liberty to deal with Ranjit Singh in accordance with law in case circumstance so warrant.
The petition stands disposed of in the terms aforesaid.