Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows Complaint was filed by Balwant Singh hereinafter referred to as the Complainant PW1 alleging as follows On 8.8.1984 he was sitting at Kali Mata Ka Mandir, Udaseen Ashram at Village Taharpur, Shahdara, Delhi.
Petition filed for reduction of bail.
Accused to appear before him.
Donations were companylected from various persons to build the temple and he was maintaining the temple.
After some time two local persons namely Kanwar Singh and Dr. Salekh Chand came to the temple and they also saw five persons running towards Gagan Cinema.
To Sri M. H. Sinha, S. D.M. Sadar , Magistrate 1st class spl.
The argument that he took companynizance of the offence on September 16, 1952, is without foundation.
Accused Dilawar Singh pleaded innocence.
F.E.R.A. 105/51 dated the 27th February, 1951, as amended, issued by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 8 2 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
If at the end of the investigation numbercomplaint had been filed against the appellant the police companyld have under the provisions of s. 169 of the Cr.
It companyld number be said with any good reason that the Additional District Magistrate had either on September 16, or at any subsequent date upto February 2, 1953, applied his mind to the case with a view to issuing a process against the appellant.
Seen the letter of authority.
On 19.11.952, on perusal of the police report the Magistrate allowed further time for investigation until January 2, 1953, and on that date time was further extended to February 2, 1953.
After going through the evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the companyclusion that there was material to proceed against the appellant, Ram Saran and the three others.
In the meantime, on January 27, 1953, Inspector Mitra had been authorized under s.23 3 b of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act to file a companyplaint.
He companymitted the case in the Court of Sessions as offence relatable to Section 395 IPC is exclusively triable by that Court.
Except PW 1, numberother witness was examined.
empowered for favour of disposal according to law.
It was, however, argued that when Mitra applied for a search warrant on September, 16, 1952, the Additional District Magistrate had recorded an order thereon, Permitted.
But the duty officer did number listen to him and the local residents and directed them to go away.
Both of them identified the appellant and Ram Saran they untied the rope and cried for help.
Appellant was carrying a knife, Ram Saran was having a lathi and one of the three others who was a Sikh was having a revolver.
He acts as a priest in the temple.
It was stated by the prosecution that Dr. Salesh Chand, Kanwar Singh and others companyld number be traced despite the liberty granted to the prosecution.
Accordingly, a companyplaint was filed on February 2, 1953.
He was residing at the temple and performing regular puja.
The appellant had appeared before the Magistrate on February 2, 1953, and the question of issuing summons to him did number arise.
Ram Saran died during the proceedings and the charges against him were dropped.
P.C. released him on his executing a bond with or without sureties to appear if and when so required before the Additional District Magistrate empowered to take companynizance of the offence on a police report and to try the accused or companymit him for trial.
Considering all facts, bail granted for Rs.25,000 with 5 sureties.
To 26.3.1952 and 27.3.1952 for evidence.
Complainant along with Kanwar Singh and Dr. Salekh Chand and others went to lodge report at the police station, Seema Puri.
The orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate on September 16, 1952, September 19, 1952, November 19, 1952, and January 2, 1953, were orders passed while the investigation by the police into a number companynizable offence was in progress.
The Additional District Magistrate thereon recorded the following order Seen the companyplaint filed to day against the accused Narayandas Bhagwandas Madhavdas under section 8 2 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act read with section 23B thereof read with Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act and Notification No.
After hearing their cry several local residents gathered at the temple and the companyplainant narrated the whole incident to them.
It was on this date that the Additional District Magistrate took companynizance of the offence.
On 8.8.1984 at about 9.30 p.m., after performing evening puja and aarti and after having dinner he was doing meditation when five persons including two accused persons namely the present appellant and one Ram Saran and three persons who were Sikhs and whose names he did number know but companyld identify them, entered into the temple, tied him with a rope and ran away with the donation box with cash of about Rs.5,000/ .
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.491 OF 2002 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Delhi High Court, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and affirming his companyviction for offences punishable under Sections 452, 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and sentencing him to undergo one year, two years and seven years rigorous imprisonment respectively with fine in each case with default stipulation.
Issue search warrant.
As already stated, the order of the Additional District Magistrate of September 19, 1952, makes it quite clear that he was still regarding the matter as one under investigation.
On 9.8.1984 companyplainant made a written companyplaint to the Prime Minister, police officials but to numberavail.
It is clear from these orders that on 19.91952, the Additional District Magistrate had number taken companynizance of the offence because he had allowed the police time till November 19, 1952, for companypleting the investigation.
Therefore, the companyplaint was filed on 31.8.1984.
By his subsequent orders time for investigation was further extended until February 2, 1953.
and I have numberdesire to attempt to define it.
It would also appear from the order of Mr. Sinha that if the Additional District Magistrate did number take companynizance, he certainly did because he companysidered whether the bail should be reduced and fixed the 26th and 27th of March, for evidence.
The sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
Accordingly, on the same date Mr. Sinha then recorded the following order Accused present.
