HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1319 / 2016
Prem Sukh S/o Chena Ram Jat, Aged About 37 Years, Rupathal,
Tehsil Jayal, Distt. Nagaur (raj.)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Bhanwari W/o Prem Sukh D/o Teja Ram Jat, Aged About 34
Years, Village Roll, Tehsil Jayal, Distt. Nagaur.
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagmal Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tarun
Dhaka.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP.
Mr. B.S. Rathore.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
Date of Order: 12/01/2018
By way of this revision, the accused petitioner Prem Sukh
has approached this Court for challenging the order dated
03.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,
Nagaur in Appeal No.89/2015 (37/13) (257/14) whereby, the
learned appellate court, while accepting the victim’s appeal under
Section 372 Cr.P.C., set aside the judgments of acquittal dated
26.04.2013 and 03.05.2013 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Jayal in Criminal Case No.83/2011 and remanded the
matter to the trial court for fresh consideration and decision as per
law.
Facts in brief:
(2 of 4)
[CRLR-1319/2016]
After investigation of FIR No.17/2011 lodged by the
respondent Smt. Bhanwari, a charge-sheet was filed against the
petitioner in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Jayal for the
offences under Sections 406, 494 and 498A IPC and Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The learned Magistrate, framed charges against the
petitioner only for the offences under Sections 494, 498A and 406
IPC and manifestly, no charge was framed against him for the
offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After a full
dressed trial, the accused Prem Sukh was acquitted from the
charges under Sections 494, 498A and 406 IPC by judgment
dated 26.04.2013. The Presiding Officer holding charge of the
court of Judicial Magistrate, Jayal appears to have adopted a very
strange and suspicious procedure and again took up the matter on
the application of the learned Public Prosecutor and passed
another judgment dated 03.05.2013 and acquitted the petitioner
from the charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The appellate court, entertained the appeal filed under
Section 372 Cr.P.C. by the respondent complainant Bhanwari and
while deciding the same by the impugned judgment, held that the
trial court acted in an absolutely cavalier and dubious manner
while conducting the case. Even the manner in which the
statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
was considered dubitable. Whilst the statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. bears the date 18.04.2013, strangely enough, the Presiding
Officer signed the same on 22.04.2013. The matter was fixed for
final arguments on 24.04.2013 which was declared a holiday. The
(3 of 4)
[CRLR-1319/2016]
Presiding Officer, allegedly heard final arguments on 26.04.2013
even though the order-sheet of that day records that the Public
Prosecutor was absent. On going through the original record of the
case it is further evident that the proceedings of 18.04.2013 have
been introduced in the order sheet through sheer interpolation.
The case had already been decided finally on 26.04.2013 but
inspite thereof, the matter was again taken up on 03.05.2013 on a
purported application filed by the Pubic Prosecutor, and on that
day, allegedly after framing a fresh charge under Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused, an additional/
supplementary judgment was passed and the accused was
acquitted from the said offence. Evidently, the Presiding Officer
holding charge of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jayal at the
relevant time acted in a highly suspicious and dubious manner
while deciding the case. There is clearly something amiss in the
manner, the case was proceeded with. The appellate court noticed
these flaws in functioning of the trial court. The subsequent order
dated 03.05.2013 was passed purportedly after framing a fresh
charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the
accused and then he was acquitted on the very same day. As the
matter had been finally decided by the Magistrate on 26.04.2013
then there was no rhyme or reason for reopening the case on
03.05.2013. Charges were framed against the accused on
02.06.2012 only for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and
494 IPC by the very same Presiding Officer. The manner in which
the Presiding Officer proceeded with the matter gives rise to a
strong suspicion that some deal was struck which was not fulfilled
(4 of 4)
[CRLR-1319/2016]
after acquittal of the accused by the initial judgment dated
26.04.2013 and thus, the matter was clandestinely reopened on
03.05.2013 and a fresh judgment was passed even though the
Presiding Officer had become functus officio on 26.04.2013 itself.
Thus manifestly, the circumstances give rise to a strong indication
of corrupt practice by the concerned Presiding Officer. Evidently,
the glaring facts also disclose gross deriliction of duties by the
Presiding Officer. Consequently, the Registry is directed to report
the matter to Hon’ble The Chief Justice for follow up action while
placing the copies of this order and the relevant documents for his
perusal.
This Court is of the further opinion that even the Additional
Public Prosecutor, who was conducting the case in the court of the
Judicial Magistrate, appears to be hands in glove with the
Presiding Officer and as such, his conduct should also be inquired
into.
A copy of this judgment shall also be forwarded to the Law
Secretary, Government of Rajasthan for inquiring into the conduct
of the Additional Public Prosecutor concerned.
In view of the discussion made herein above, I find no
infirmity or illegality being reflected in the impugned order dated
03.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,
Nagaur and hence, the instant revision is dismissed as being
devoid of merit with the above directions.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.
Tikam Daiya/