1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6563/2009. Sajjan Singh Vs. The Special Judge NDPS Date of Order :: 16th July 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Dr. P.S. Bhati,for the petitioner. .... BY THE COURT: By the judgment dated 07.01.2009 as passed in Sessions Case No.96/1997, the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Hanumangarh proceeded to make adverse observations in relation to the conduct of the petitioner Sajjan Singh, who had carried out search and seizure proceedings in the matter while being posted as SHO, Hanumangarh Junction and who appeared as PW-5 in the trial; and directed notice to be issued to the petitioner for the proceedings under Section 59 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. ('the Act') It appears that the petitioner was served with the notice dated 17.01.2009 (Annex.1) as issued by the said Special Judge asking him to appear and show cause on 29.01.2009. It is noticed from the ordersheets as placed on record as Annexure 3 that the petitioner did not appear on the stipulated date and, instead, sent a radiogram seeking another date in 2 the matter whereupon the learned Judge, while adjourning the matter, directed notice afresh to be issued to the petitioner for his appearance 17.02.2009. On 17.02.2009, the petitioner appeared before the learned Special Judge but moved an application seeking one month's time for filing the reply and also made a prayer for supplying him the copies of certain documents. The learned Special Judge directed that the petitioner be supplied the necessary copies upon moving of the requisite application; and the matter was adjourned to 17.03.2009 while granting the petitioner time for filing reply, as prayed. On 17.03.2009, the petitioner sent another radiogram that he was occupied in maintaining law and order in a fare and an application was also moved on his behalf by the Special Public Prosecutor seeking adjournment. The learned Special Judge, however, observed that on the last occasion, one month's time was granted to the petitioner as per his request but the reply had not been filed. The learned Judge further observed that in the police services, duties for maintaining law and order were of routine feature but the reply had not been filed by the petitioner despite sufficient opportunities; and, while closing the petitioner's right of filing reply, posted the matter for orders on 25.03.2009. 3 On 25.03.2009, the learned Special Judge again adjourned the matter for passing the order to 13.04.2009; and on 13.04.2009, again, the matter was adjourned to 20.04.2009; and on 20.04.2009, yet again, the matter was adjourned to 01.05.2009. Of course, the order sheets mark the absence of the petitioner on all these dates. Thereafter, on 01.05.2009, the learned Special Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order against the petitioner. The learned Judge referred to the judgment dated 07.01.2009 and the statement of the petitioner in the said Sessions Case as PW-5; and found the petitioner having omitted to comply with the requirements of the mandatory provisions of the Act including Section 42. After finding the conduct of the petitioner being hit by Section 59 of the Act, the learned Judge observed that a complaint was required to be lodged against the petitioner and for that purpose sanction was to be obtained from the State Government; and hence, directed that the relevant papers be sent to the Chief Secretary and complaint be instituted after receiving the sanction. On his part, the petitioner, though chose not to appear before the learned Special Judge on or even after 17.03.2009 but, of course, filed a miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (S.B.Cr.Misc.Petition No.592/2009) to this Court 4 on 02.04.2009 seeking to question the said order dated 17.03.2009. The petitioner has taken the averments in this writ petition that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C was 'not entertained' by this Court without filing a copy of the order passed in the said miscellaneous petition. The record of the said miscellaneous petition has been requisitioned and it is noticed that on 13.04.2009, the said petition was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the petitioner, did not reach on 22.04.2009, and then, a submission was made before the Court on 18.05.2009 that the petition had become infructuous. The said miscellaneous petition was, accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous. The petitioner has, thereafter, filed this writ petition on 07.07.2009 seeking to question the aforesaid orders dated 17.03.2009 and 01.05.2009. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner had assigned valid reasons for his inability to attend the matter on 17.03.2009; and it was not a case of deliberate absence. The learned counsel submitted that it is not the observation of the learned Special Judge that the reason as assigned by the petitioner was not correct and in the given circumstances, there was no reason that the right of defence was denied to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Special Judge had been 5 unjustified in closing the right of filing of the reply on 17.03.2009 despite having been made aware that the petitioner was engaged in vital official duties of maintaining law and order in a religious fare involving lakhs of devotees. The learned counsel further submitted that the proceedings in contemplation have a direct bearing on the career prospects of the petitioner and in such a matter, the learned Special Judge ought not to have deprived him the right of defence. Learned counsel urged that the petitioner is asking for nothing except a reasonable opportunity of defence. Ordinarily, the matters are preferred to be decided on merits and abrupt denial of opportunity of reply or making submissions is not endorsed by this Court but then, in the given fact situation, this Court finds no justification in entertaining this writ petition. Comprehension of the material on record makes it clear that the petitioner was definitely served with the notice requiring him to appear before the learned Special Judge on 29.01.2009 but he did not; and, instead, sent a radiogram seeking another date. On such a request, the learned Special Judge, without observing anything else, simply adjourned the matter to 17.02.2009 and directed another notice to be sent to the petitioner. Then, on 17.02.2009, the petitioner himself asked for one month's time and the learned Special Judge did 6 not deny such opportunity either; and, while directing that the relevant copies be supplied on application, adjourned the matter to 17.03.2009. It cannot be said that the learned Special Judge proceeded in the matter with any haste or declined reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. So far the aspect of the petitioner's engagement on 17.03.2009 is concerned, there appears no reason that the petitioner, who had already been granted enough time, would not have taken requisite steps for filing or sending a reply before that date. In the given circumstances and the background facts particularly that on 29.01.2009 the petitioner did not appear despite notice; and that on 17.02.2009, he was granted a month's time as per his prayer, the learned Special Judge cannot be said to have acted illegally or arbitrarily in refusing the prayer for adjournment on 17.03.2009. The conduct of the petitioner after 17.03.2009 definitely gives out the indications contrary to the suggestions of bona fide, as sought to be projected in this writ petition. The learned Special Judge, despite closing the petitioner's right of reply on 17.03.2009, adjourned the matter to 25.03.2009 for passing the order. The learned Special Judge further adjourned the matter at least three more times i.e., on 25.03.2009, on 13.04.2009, and on 20.04.2009; and thereafter passed the order only on 01.05.2009. The petitioner 7 has not shown if at all he made any effort after 17.03.2009 to enquire about the matter or to attend on the same with his reply if he was willing to co-operate with the Court and was at all interested in filing the reply. Not that the petitioner remained oblivious of the matter; rather he chose to file the said miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to this Court on 02.04.2009 against the order dated 17.03.2009. In this writ petition, the petitioner has even made an incorrect projection of the proceedings pertaining to said petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The averments as taken in para 8 (X) of this writ petition are suggestive as if the said miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was refused to be entertained by this Court. The fact of the matter had been that the said petition was adjourned on 13.04.2009 at the request of the counsel for the petitioner and then, was dismissed on 18.05.2009 as per the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petition had become infructuous. Taking an overall view of the matter, this Court is clearly of opinion that if the petitioner was at all willing to co-operate with the Court, and wanted to submit the reply, he had ample and sufficient opportunities to do so before 17.03.2009 or even after. Significantly, the impugned order came to be passed against the petitioner only on 01.05.2009, after the learned 8 Special Judge had adjourned the matter only for the purpose of passing of the order on three more occasions as noticed above. There is nothing, even remote, available on record to find if the petitioner ever made any effort to enquire about and attend on the matter even after 17.03.2009 until 01.05.2009, when the learned Special Judge passed the order against him. This Court is clearly of opinion that on a bona fide request, indulgence could be granted but then, such indulgence deserves to be declined in the matters where the proceedings are intentionally avoided by any person. The petitioner is not a layman either. He is said to be presently working as Deputy Superintendent of Police and is not a person ignorant of the requirements of law and the requirement of attending the Court when called upon to do so. The overall conduct of the petitioner depicts want of forthrightness on his part and a comprehension of the proceedings before the Special Judge leads only to one inference that the petitioner had consciously avoided to submit his reply and to attend on the matter. There appears no reason to extend the petitioner any indulgence in the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition stands rejected. s.soni (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.