38 Criminal Revision 1110 1606 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHe Criminal Revision No 1606 of 2004 DECIDED ON 28eo090 Kulbir Singh Appellante 0 VERSUS 0 C State of Punjab Respondente C5 I CORAM 2 Honble Mr JUSTICE JORA SINGH Z r Present Mrl2oshan Lal Sharma Advocate for the appellant I C Mr DSBrar DGPunjab for the respondentmState 2 Z JORA SINGHJ ll Through the instant revision the petitioner has impugned the judgment dated 352004 rendered by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Jagraon Vide this judgment revisionist was convicted in DRNo11 dated 922001 under Section 340561 of Police Act registered at Police Station Jagraon and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 501 and in default of payment of fine was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days Prosecution story in brief is that on 922001 police par4tyheaded by Amarjit Singh Head Constable and . Anita 2012.10.09 13: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 39 Criminal Revision No 1606 of 2004 2 other police officials was present ln Tehsil Chowk Jagraon Party was holding Nakabandi and heard noise from the side of Tehsil complex Party had gone towards the Court complex then sighted Kulbir Singh while creating nulsance under the influence of liquor Revisionist was made to understand by the police party but he did not agree On inquiry 1 revisionist disclosed his name as Kulbir Singh son of 0 Gurdevinder Singh resident of Nabha Revisionist was C I apprehended and was got medico legally examined from the C5 I doctor Doctor reported that he was under the influence of liquor Z After completion of investigation Calendra against r Kulbir Singh was presented in Court Notice was issued under Section 345a61 of the 08 Police Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial 7 Prosecution produced three witnesses namely PW Z Dr Arun Gupta PV2 Head Constable Amarjit Singh and 0 6 PWe3 Constable Kuldip Singh After the close of prosecution evidence statement of the revisionist under Section 313 CrC was recorded Revisionist denied all the allegation of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent In defence Naib Nazir Kishan Singh was examined After hearing learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State defence counsel for the revisionist revisionist was convicted and sentenced as stated above Feeling dissatisfied with the judgmentlorder dated . Anita 2012.10.09 13: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 40 1 Criminal Revision Noa 1606 of 20040 3 352004 present revlslon was preferred I have heard learned counsel for the parties Sole contention of the learned counsel for the revlSlOnlSt is that occurrence is dated 922001 whereas Calendra was presented on 8A2003 Maximum punishment under Section 34561 of the Police Act is Rs501 Calendra 1C2 was not presented within limitation as per Section 468 0 CrPC When report submitted after expiry of limitation then C I Magistrate had no power to take cognizance C5 I Learned Deputy Advocate General Punjab argued that no doubt the occurrence is dated 922001 and the Z Calendra was presented on 8A2003 Calendra was not Ct presentecl within limitation because departmental inquiry was initiated against the revlSlOnlst Along with Calendra c4j application was moved disclosing the reason as to why the A7 Calendracould not be presented earlier and as per order of Z Ii the Court Calendra was entertained 0m5 Frono the perusal of the file it 1S very clear that the revlSlOnlst was the ernployee of the judicial department He was serving as process server on the day of occurrence 1e 22001 Revisionist was creating nuisance on public place while he was under the influence of liquor Police party headed by Head Constable Amarjit Singh was holding nakabandi near the Court complex On hearing raula from the side of Court Complex police party went to the Court Complex Outside the Court in front of the chamber of lawyers petitioner was found creating nuisance when he was . Anita 2012.10.09 13: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 41 Criminal Revision No 1606 of 2004 4 Il under the influence of liquor Petitioner was medico legally examined by Drrun Gupta who appeared as PVV Dr l Gupta stated that on 92001 he was on emergencyduty Then Kulbir Singh was produced before him At about 11 IM he was brought by Head Constable Amarjit Singh and other police officials On examination history of alcohol was 1 found present He had refused to supply blood and urine for 0 test Kulbir Singh was found under the influence of liquor 0 I PW24marjit Singh has supported the prosecution C I story by saying that Kulbir Singh employee of the Court was apprehended while creating nulsance on public place when Z he was under the influence of liquor Kulbir Singh was apprehendedand was producedbefore the doctor for medico legal exarnination a5 PW4 Nachhatar Singh Naib Nazir stated that on am 92001 photo copy of the entries of attendance register was supplied to the InvestigatingOfficer ExC is the copy of the erltry of the attendance register As per record Kulbir Singh was serving as process server in the Judicial Courts at Jagraon On 922001 Kulbir Singh was absent and absent was marked by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Jagraon Kishan Singh DWl stated that on 92001 he had received applioation qua leave of Kulbir Singh One relative of the official had brought the application Application was presented before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Jagraon but the same was rejected On cross examination he . Anita 2012.10.09 13: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 42 Criminal Revision 1ITo 1606 of 2004 5 1 adrnitted that on 922001 Kulbir Singh failed to attend office Kishan Singh DW failed to bring register regarding receipt of application and presentation of the sarne before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Jagraon After the application was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Jagraon then intimation was not sent to the higher C authorities 0 So from the perusal of the evidence on the file one C I thing 1S clear that the revisionist was process server on C I 922001 and on that day he failed to attend the Court Application if any received regarding leave was rejectedby Z the competent authorit Calendera was presented under Section 340561 of I the Police Act and Section 34 of the Police Act is reproduced 08 under es 44 Punishment for certain offences on road etc Any person who on any road or in any tl street or thoroughfare within the limits of any town to which this section shall be specially extended by the State Governmentlcorts any of the following offences to the obstruction lnconvenience annoyance risk danger or darnage of the residents or passengerslshall on conviction before a Magistratebe liable to a fine not exceeding fifty rupees or to imprisonment vith or without hard labourl not exceeding eight days Power of Police Officerse . Anita 2012.10.09 13: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 43 Criminal Revision lIToe 1606 of 20040 6 and it shall be lawful for any police officer to take into custodywithout a warrant any person who within his Vlew commits any of such offencesnamelyl Being found or riotouse Sixthe Any person whis found drunk or riotous or tm C incapableof taking care of himself 1S 0 The provision of Section 468 of the Code of 0 CrirninalProcedure 1973 is also reproducedas under C5 44 468 Bar to taking cognizance after I lapseof the periodof limitatione Z lIExcept as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code no Court sliall take cognizanceof an offence of the category specified in subm otj section 21 after the expiry of period of 7 limitation Z 21The periodof limitation shall be al SlX rnonths if the offence is punishable with fine only bl one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year cl three years if the offence is punishable with imprisonmentfor a term exceeding one yearbut not exceedingthree years 3 For the purposes of this section the period of limitation in relation to offences . Anita 2012.10.09 13: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 44 Criminal Revision eNoe 1606 of 2004 7 which may be tried together shall be determined with reference to the offenee which is punishable with the more severe punishrnent or as the case may be the rnost severe punishment ll Learned counsel for the revisionist cited Amar Singh and others Vse State of Punjab 200321 RCR 0 Criminall 679 wherein it was held that police investigating C I an offence but subrnitting report after expiry of limitation C5 I Magistrate taking cognizance without passing any order of condonation of delay Proceedings quashed Order of Z 2 lVlagistrate condoning the delay subsequent to taking cognizance is not valid I In view of the above cited authority and Section 468 oll CrC when only fine 1S payable for the commission of e7 offence then period of limitation 1S SlX months Magistrate Z can take cognizance only after passing of order for condonation of delay ln case challan was presented after expiry of period of limitation In the present case Calandera was presented on 8A2003 Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Jagraon passed the order dated 8A2003 and the order 1S reproduced as under The Calendera has been presented Report of the Ahlmad has been perused Alongwith the Calendera the Investigating Officer has filed the description elucidating the factum as to the . Anita 2012.10.09 13: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document P e 45 Criminal Revision lITo 1606 of 2004 8 reasons why the Calendera could not be presented earlier and it has been made abundantly clear therein that the departmental inquiry has been initiated against the erring police officials hence the Calendera is ordered to be registered Let the surnmons be issued to the accused for 252003 99 1 0 Order dated 8A2003 passed by Judicial 0 I Magistrate Ist Class Jagroan shows that while taking C5 I cognizance delay in presentingthe Calendera after expiry of period of limitation was condoned By moving application the Z prosecution specifically brought point of limitation to the notlce of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Jagroan on I the allegation that departmentalinquiry has been initiated 08 against Kulbir Singh and due to initiation of departmental W3 inquiry Calendera was not presented in Court within Z j limitation Keeping ln vleW th submission of the prosecution Calendera was ordered to be registered and the accused was suoned for next date of hearing Learned counsel for the revisionist fray admitted that there was departmental inquiry against the petitioner and the inquiry was decided against the petitioner In view of the order in the departmental inquiry services of the petitioner were terminated At present petitioner is not ln servlce Against the order by the Inquiry Officer serVlCe appeal is pending Mr DSBrar Deputy Advocate General Punjab . Anita 2012.10.09 13: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 46 Criminal Revision Noe 1606 of 2004 9 arguedthat in the order dated 8A2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Jagroan delay in filling the Calendera under Section 469 CrC was condoned Occurrence is dated 922001 If the revisionist is taken back in service then he will instigate the other officials not to obeythe order of the judicial officers and will leave the r office at any tlme without pession and will send 0 application from home without getting the leave sanctioned 3 Subrnission of the learned counsel for the C5 respondent seems to be reasonable one But in the present case Court is simply to see whether Calendera was Z presented within limitation or expiry of period of limitation e r by condoning delay I As discussed earlier order dated 8A2003 shows C45 that Calendera was ordered to be registered after condoning emeo dela So contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is Z not correct one OL No other submission was put forward As a sequence of the above liscussion revlSlOll 1S without merit and dismissed V6 28 0 09 SINGHI Anoop JUDGE 4 . Anita 2012.10.09 13: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document