Chait Ram & Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal

the said land, Smt. Bicchna Devi also has her land and the revisionists are also threatening her and have abused her. In these circumstances, there are chances of the breach of law and order and also there are chances of committing some heinous crime by the revisionists, who are not working as per law and even they are not obeying the orders. The revisionists have again closed the way when it was opened by the revenue authorities.

#3. On the basis of the abovesaid averments, the Supervisor Kanoongo, Guptkashi requested the Court for summoning the revisionists in the Court and ask them to furnish personal bonds and sureties to maintain the law and order. On the basis of this report, notices was issued to the revisionists under Section 111 CrPC. Thereafter the revisionists have come in the Court. Their statements were recorded under Section 251 CrPC.

#4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 Shivraj Lal, Supervisor Kanoongo, Guptkashi; PW2 Nand Kishor, the complainant; PW3 Vinod Kumar Nautiyal and PW4 Dharmanand, who have supported the facts mentioned in the aforesaid chalani report of the Supervisor Kanoongo, on the basis of which the notice under Section 111 CrPC was issued to the revisionists.

#5. Thereafter, statements of the revisionists were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., who denied the allegations made against them. In defence, the revisionists i.e. Chait Ram and Jagdamba Prasad have examined themselves as DW1 and DW2 respectively. 3

#6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating the evidence available on record, learned SDM, Ukhimath vide his judgment and order dated 27.5.2002 asked each of the revisionists to furnish within 15 days a bond for Rs. 5,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount for keeping peace for a period of one year. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated

27.5.2002, the revisionists preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 19.7.2002 and the order of the SDM, Ukhimath was affirmed. Hence, the present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists.

#7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the entire material available on the record.

#8. Learned Counsel for the revisionists argued that as per Section 116(6) CrPC, the inquiry is not completed within a period of six months from the date of its commencement. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of the SDM, Ukhimath dated 27.5.2002 is not correct. For the sake of convenience, Section 116(6) CrPC is reproduced as under: Section 116(6) CrPC : “The inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of six month from the date of its commencement, and if such inquiry is not so completed, the proceedings under this Chapter shall, on the expiry of the said period, stand terminated unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.”

#9. From the perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the SDM, Ukhimath dated 27.5.2002, it reveals 4 that the six months’ period was scheduled to be expired on 11.3.2002, but as the SDM, Ukhimath was busy in the Legislative Assembly elections, hence on 26.2.2002 the period was extended for further three months and as per Section 116(6) CrPC, the Magistrate has power to extend the time for special reasons to be recorded in writing. As discussed above, the SDM, Ukhimath was busy in the Legislative Assembly elections, hence he was unable to decide the matter within the stipulated time and, therefore, the period was extended on 26.2.2002 before the expiry of the due date for three months and thus, the said period was extended till 10.6.2002 as the six months’ time was scheduled to be expired on 11.3.2002 and the SDM, Ukhimath has decided the case on 27.5.2002 and hence, it was decided within the time which is as per law. Moreover, the order dated 26.2.2002 was not challenged by the revisionists. Hence, the order of the SDM, Ukhimath dated 27.5.2002 is correct and in view of the legal position discussed above, learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag has rightly affirmed the aforesaid order of the SDM vide his judgment and order dated 19.7.2002. As such, the argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionists is misconceived and is hereby rejected.

#10. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order dated 27.5.2002 passed by the SDM, Ukhimath and the judgment and order dated 19.7.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag. As such, the revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed as such.

#11. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 12.8.2002 stands vacated. Revisionists are directed to appear before the 5 SDM, Ukhimath on 20.8.2010 for compliance of his order dated 27.5.2002. PRABODH (Dharam Veer, J.)

5.8.2010