Skip to content


inder Kumar Kapur Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1973CriLJ147
Appellantinder Kumar Kapur
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply..........words giving in the judgment dated march 9, 1970 by shri s.s. dewan, special judge, ludhiana:while giving the benefit of doubt' the facts leading to this petition are as under:2. the petitioner is a sanitary inspector in municipal committee, ludhiana. he was tried under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act for having accepted rupees 100 from one dharam singh of village butari as illegal gratification on or about december 12, 1968 as a motive or reward for showing favour to him. he was acquitted by the special judge. in the petition it is prayed that the expression 'while giving the benefit of doubt' should not have been employed by the special judge before the words 'i acquit shri i.k. kapur and harish kumar.' obviously the object of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Gopal Singh, J.

1. This is petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for expunging the following words giving in the judgment dated March 9, 1970 by Shri S.S. Dewan, Special Judge, Ludhiana:

While giving the benefit of doubt' The facts leading to this petition are as under:

2. The petitioner is a Sanitary Inspector in Municipal Committee, Ludhiana. He was tried under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for having accepted Rupees 100 from one Dharam Singh of village Butari as illegal gratification on or about December 12, 1968 as a motive or reward for showing favour to him. He was acquitted by the Special Judge. In the petition it is prayed that the expression 'while giving the benefit of doubt' should not have been employed by the Special Judge before the words 'I acquit Shri I.K. Kapur and Harish Kumar.' Obviously the object of the present petition is not for expunction of any remarks of derogatory character employed against the petitioner but the petitioner claims that he should have been acquitted honourably without the Special Judge saying that the petitioner was being acquitted because of the benefit of doubt having been given to him. On the basis of the evidence led in the case it is for the Special Judge to come to the conclusion whether the case is one which calls for the acquittal because of the benefit of doubt having been given to the accused or because of the outright and honourable acquittal without mentioning that the appreciation of the evidence called for the observation that the accused was being acquitted because of the benefit of doubt being given to him. Exercise of inherent power under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be invoked for the purpose of changing the nature of a finding or findings arrived at by the subordinate Courts as a result of appreciation of evidence The petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for purpose of altering the nature of the finding arrived at by the trial Court is misconceived in so far as the applicability of the remedial provision of Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code is concerned.

Even on merits, there is no Justification for the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner. (After discussing the evidence the judgment proceeded.)

Thus above comments on the evidence by the Special Judge aptly call for the observation that the petitioner deserves to be given the benefit of doubt.

3. In the result. I find that the observation at the end of the judgment by the Special Judge 'while giving the benefit of doubt' does not deserve to be expunged or deleted. Revision petition has no force and is disallowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //