1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appln No. 399 of 2010 Subhash Chandra Kukreti S/O Late Shri Manik Lal Kukreti presently posted as Dy. S.P. Uttarkashi permanent Address Kukreti Bhawan Kotdwar Road, Pauri District Pauri Garhwal ……………. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand Through Secretary Home Dehradun …………..Respondent Shri Manish Arora, Advocate present for the petitioner Shri M.A.Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 20th of March 2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, in Criminal Misc. Case no. 3 of 2010, whereby said court has held the petitioner guilty under section 349 of Cr.P.C, and punished him to imprisonment till 2 rising of the court and also directed that an adverse entry be recorded against him, in his character roll. (3) Brief facts of the case are that a crime no 1 of 2009 was registered with revenue police Area Gundiyat Gaon Tehsil Purola in District Uttarkashi in the year 2009 in respect of offences punishable under section 304B, 498A, 201, 120B, I.P.C, and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In Uttarakhand hills certain revenue official are given police powers under U.P. Government Notification No. 494/VIII-418-16 dated 07.03.1916. Later the investigation was transferred under orders of the District Magistrate, to the petitioner who was a Circle Officer in the regular police. After investigation, he submitted charge sheet (copy of Annexure 1 to the petition against the accused). It appears that during trial the Sessions Judge felt inconvenience in proceeding with the trial as the witnesses were not turning up. He issued notice to the petitioner under section 349 of Cr.P.C and sentenced him as mentioned above. (4) Section 349 of Cr.P.C provides that if any witness or person called to answer or to produce a document refuses to answer such question or refuses to produce the document without any reasonable excuse he can be punished under the section. (5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither the petitioner refused to answer any question nor refused to 3 produce the document. It is argued that the impugned order passed by the trial court is blatant abuse of process of law. (6) Learned counsel for the State also conceded that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in law in passing the impugned order on the ground that the Investigating Officer had the duty to get the notices served on the witnesses. It is relevant to mention here that though investigation was done by the petitioner, the area to which the case relates remained revenue police area and the summons and notices were required to be served on the witnesses through state revenue police, and the petitioner was not at fault. (7) Having considered submissions and learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this court finds that learned Sessions Judge has committed grave error of law in passing the impugned order. (8) Therefore, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C is allowed. The impugned order dated 20th of March 2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge Uttarkashi in criminal Misc. case no. 3 of 2010 State vs. Subhash Chandra Kukreti under section 349 of Cr.P.C, is hereby quashed. Dt.07.05.2010 N.P (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 4