Radha Raman Bhargava vs Keshav Dutt Pandey and Another

V.N. Misra, J.—This is an application in revision by Radha Raman Bhargava against the order of Sri Jai Gopal Mehrotra, Special Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, I Class, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 406/1X/80 by means of which he framed charges under Sections 197 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant.

In this case a complaint was filed against the applicant by opposite party No. 1 Keshav Dutt Pandey. On the filing of this case evidence was recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; but the Magistrate did not feel satisfied that on this evidence he should summon the applicant and he directed further investigation of the case. After further investigations the police submitted a final report in the case, inspite of this the learned Magistrate, however, summoned the accused.

At the time when the new Code of Criminal Procedure came into force this case was pending in the court of the Magistrate and the Magistrate committed this case to the Court of Session. The Sessions Judge, however, sent this case back to the Magistrate, since those offences were triable by him and directed him to try the case himself, the case was transferred to the Special Judicial Magistrate, who framed charges in this case and this revision is directed against the framing of these charges.

The procedure followed in this case was wholly improper because u/s 228(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the case is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Sessions Judge may frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Judicial Magistrate and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for trial of warrant cases before sending this case to the Magistrate, therefore, the Sessions Judge had to frame charge in the case himself and then he had to send the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and it was the Chief Judicial Magistrate alone who should have proceeded to try the case. In this case however, the case seems to have been transferred to the Special Judicial Magistrate'' who framed the charges.

It is also very apparent that in this case no offence had been apparently committed either u/s 197 of the Indian Penal Code or u/s 477A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant, who was Principal of a College gave a certificate in respect of the age of a particular student so that he may take part in the sports. He was not required by any law to give such a certificate, therefore no offence was committed u/s 197 of the Indian Penal Code. '' Then the certificate which the Principal gave in this case had to be proved that an offence u/s 197 of the Indian Penal Code is committed only when the certificate given is admissible in evidence and does not have to be proved. It was also not shown by the evidence examined that the Principal gave this certificate knowing or believing it to be false. For this reason too, therefore, no offence was committed u/s 197 of the Indian Penal Code.

It was also apparent that no offence was committed u/s 477A of the Indian Penal Code because the certificate was not given with any intention to defraud nor did the certificate, after being given, destroyed, altered, mutilated or falsified any book, paper, writing, valuable security or account nor again in this case there was any falsification of account of the employer of the property. For these reasons no offence was committed u/s 477A of the Indian Penal Code either.

In this case the complaint was filed on 21-12-1979 and more than 11 years have already passed since then. The complaint was in respect of all the offences which were not committed and the charge framed was by an authority which should not have taken up the case and proceeded with it. There was thus harassment of the applicant throughout these more than 11 years. Since the procedure followed in this case was very irregular and none of the two offences u/s 197 or 477A of the Indian Penal Code was committed, therefore, the charges framed must be quashed.

This revision is, therefore, allowed and the charges framed by the Special Judicial Magistrate are hereby set aside.