IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 237 of 2004 Decided on: 10.11.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Virender Singh. ..…Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. A.G. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. The respondent was tried and acquitted for the offences punishable, under Sections 452, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the State filed the instant appeal. 3. The case of the prosecution is that complainant was the tenant in the building of the respondent, wherein he was running Computer Centre. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 He had fixed two signboards of his Computer Centre, outside the premises. On the request of the respondent these were removed by the complainant with the assurance to reinstall it on the said place after the construction of the hand-pump by the respondent. After the completion of the work of the hand- pump, the respondent did not honour the assurance given to the complainant. Thus, on 27th February the complainant made a complaint to the police. On coming to know about this, respondent approached the mother of the complainant and asked her that in case the complainant would withdraw his complaint made to the police, he would permit him to install the signboards. 4. On 20th March, 2002 the complainant reinstalled one of the signboards at the previous place whereupon the respondent is alleged to have damaged it thereafter entered into the office of Computer Centre, caused destruction therein, picked up quarrel with the complainant and threatened him with dire consequences at the point of his Revolver. PW-2 Rakesh Kumar, Instructor of the complainant’s institution and Vineet Kumar were the eye witnesses. 3 The complainant filed a complaint Ext.PW1/A to the police, which culminated into FIR Ext. PW3/A. 5. The investigation was taken up by PW-3 Guljari Lal. He visited the spot and prepared site plan Ext.PW3/B. He took into possession the broken pieces of signboards vide memo Ext.PW1/B and recorded the statements of the witnesses. On the completion of the challan, it was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondent for the offences aforesaid. 6. The respondent was accordingly charge- sheeted for the offences aforesaid. He abjured his guilt. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses. The respondent was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He pleaded that it was a false case against him and witnesses were employees of the complainant. Though, he opted to lead the evidence in defence but no evidence in defence was led. At the end of the trial, he was mainly acquitted on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR and the copy of the FIR having been forwarded to the Magistrate concerned after two days of its lodging. 7. On examining the judgment of the learned trial Court, I find it indefensible as the learned trial 4 Court did not properly appreciate the evidence on record in order to find out whether the delay, in the given circumstances could be said to be fatal to the prosecution vis-à-vis the other evidence of the incident on record. The proposition that FIR has its importance or authenticity on account of delay in its lodging and also its dispatch to Illaqua Magistrate is not a rule of general proposition of universal application. Its object is to set the law in motion. Section 157 Cr.P.C. says that if from the information received or otherwise an officer Incharge of the Police Station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered to investigate he shall forthwith send a report of the same to the Magistrate concerned and proceed in person to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, if he does not send a report to the Magistrate, that does not mean that his proceedings to the spot, is not an investigation. Once the investigation has been initiated and the evidence is collected, the challan is presented in Court if it spells out the commission of an offence which is required to be tested during the trial to find out if the accused is guilty or not. Otherwise also, if the occurrence stands 5 proved, the delay in lodging the FIR become insignificant. 8. In the instant case, the main focus of the learned trial Court remained on the delay part as aforesaid without giving any findings whether the testimonies on record are worth inspiring confidence, disclosing the commission of offences charged. 9. In view of the above, on this short ground the impugned judgment of acquittal is hereby set-aside and case is remanded back to the learned trial Court with the direction to rehear the arguments and decide the matter on merit afresh in accordance with law without having been influenced by any observations made hereinabove, with respect to the guilt of the accused. 10. The parties are directed to be present before the learned trial Court on 3.12.2010. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back. 11. Matter stands accordingly disposed of. (Surinder Singh), J. November 10, 2010, (vs)