Sharda Prasad Dixit vs State of U.P.

Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—The facts, relating to this application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. are that the applicant was a Station House Officer, Police Station Ate District Jalaun at Orai. On 19.1.1981, he arrested two brothers Mohan and Santosh, allegedly carrying 5 Kgs. silver and some arm and ammunition which he recovered and on the basis of this recovery instituted case Crime Nos. 21 of 1981 and 22 of 1981 u/s 25 Arms Act and Section 411, I.P.C. against them.

On a complaint made by the father of these two accused that the applicant has falsely implicated them, the silver, the Station House Officer recovered was not 5 kgs. but 39 Kg. Superintendent of Police of the district on 4.3.1981 got a criminal case Crime No. 23 of 1981 under Sections 467, 218, 192, 342 and 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered against the applicant at Police Station Konch.

In the result of the investigation, the police filed a final report in cases against Mohan and Santosh, which the Judicial Magistrate accepted.

While, on the other hand, Police filed a charge-sheet against the applicant on 30.3.1984 in the Court of Special Judge, E. C. Act, Orai, in which, the Judge framed the charges on 24.4.2007. Subsequent to it, the case was transferred for Trial to Anti-Corruption Judge, Lucknow, thereafter again to District Judge, Jalaun.

Three of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined in this case.

What happened that on 5.12.2007, the applicant filed an application before the District and Sessions Judge, Jalaun, saying, that the applicant was not heard before accepting the final report in aforenoted two cases, in which he was the informant and therefore, an opportunity be given to him to raise an objection against filing the final report, which the Sessions Judge has refused, by order dated 5.12.2007.

That is what brings the applicant here u/s 482, Cr.P.C. praying the order passed by the Sessions Judge be quashed.

Heard Sri G.P. Dixit, advocate for the applicant and Mohd. Israil Siddiqui, Additional Government advocate for the State.

Counsel for the applicant has referred to the case of Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Anr. 1985 SCC 267: 1986 ACR 26 , wherein it has been held, that the informant is entitled to be heard when on basis of police report, Magistrate prefers to drop proceedings without taking cognizance.

The applicant may be, having a right, to file a protest petition and hearing but the Principle of ''Delay defeats Equity'' operates against him, and it is not possible to grant relief on this basis after about 23 years. If he wanted relief, he should have come to this Court within 3 years from the date of filing of the charge-sheet against him, which is the limitation fixed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Das v. Union of India 2007 (3) SCJ 241. It was clarified in this case that the reasonable period for seeking the assistance of the Court in a petition is 3 years and if filed after that, the petition is liable to rejection.

It is not, therefore, possible to revive 23 years old matter now. The application was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Sessions Judge.

Application dismissed.