Skip to content


Jia Lal Vs. Chandra Pal Sharma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1973CriLJ1515
AppellantJia Lal
RespondentChandra Pal Sharma and ors.
Excerpt:
.....warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this code, or (b) of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge, including any misguide of charges, or (c) of the omission to revise any list of jurors in accordance with section 324, or (d) of any misdirection of any charge to a jury unless such error, omission, irregularity *or misdirection has in fact occasioned a failure of justice. 2,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year for keeping peace. 5. no error, omission or irregularity in a complaint, summons, warrants, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before a criminal court during a trial would vitiate the proceedings unless such error, omission or irregularity..........filling in the blanks. the words carrying the import that it was being issued in consequence of a police report merely constituted an irregularity. on joining proceedings before the sub-divisional magistrate jia lai could have taken inspection of the record and could have found that the sub-divisional magistrate had acted on the evidence produced before him and not on a police report. the averment in the impugned notice that report had been received from the s. h. o., sadar bazar, was a curable irregularity within the scope of section 537 of the code. it did not ensure for the recommendation that the notice be quashed. the notice was in the nature of summons requiring jia lai to appear before the sub-divisional magistrate to show cause as to why he should not be called upon to furnish a.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Pritam Singh Safeer, J.

1. Shri Chander Pal Sharma, the respondent before me filed an application under Section 107/150 of the Criminal Procedure Code alleging that he had lodged several reports at police station, Sadar Bazar against the petitioner, Jia Lai and others to the effect that he apprehended danger to his life and property at their hands and that. the police had taken no action. On taking up the application, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Bazar passed an order requiring the S. H. O., Sadar Bazar to submit the report by the 9th November, 1971. No report was submitted. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate then recorded the evidence, which the applicant Chander Pal Sharma produced before him and passed an order on the 6th June, 1972 in which he stated that he had taken into consideration the evidence of Kishan Lai and Om Parkash besides that of Chander Pal Sharma himself and had come to the conclusion that there was an apprehension of breach of peace, which would not be avoided, without initiating proceedings under Sections 107/150, Criminal Procedure Code against the respondents. Coming to that finding the Si;b-Diyisional Magistrate ordered that notices be issued to the respondents under Sections 107/112 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called 'the Code') requiring of them to show cause why they should not be ordered to be bound down by executing bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- with one surety for the like amount for keeping peace for a period of one year. The case was adjourned to the 17th June, 1972.

2. In consequence of the said order, a notice was served on Jia Lai one of respondents. The notice which was filed with the revision petition preferred under Section 435 of the Code before the Sessions Judge, Delhi is contained in a cyclostyled form. It starts by

whereas from the report of S. H. O. Police Station S. B. it appears that you Jia Lai 66, Jatwara, Pul Mithai, S. B. threatened to use force against Chander Pal.

3. On receipt of the notice Jia Lal filed the petition under Section 435 of the Code raising the grievance that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had never received any report from the S. H. O., Police Station, Sadar Bazar and the notice issued under the date 6th June, 1972 for that reason deserved to be quashed. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge who has sent a report under Section 435 of the Code ignored the provision contained in Section 537 of the Code:-

Section 537. Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered under Chapter XXVII or on appeal or revision on account-

(a) of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, * * * proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or

(b) of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge, including any misguide of charges, or

(c) of the omission to revise any list of jurors in accordance with Section 324, or

(d) of any misdirection of any charge to a jury

unless such error, omission, irregularity * * * * or misdirection has in fact occasioned a failure of justice.

4. Section 112 of the Code provided to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Bazar a jurisdiction on which there was no limitation that it could be exercised only on receiving a report from the police. He was within his powers to direct the issuance of a show cause notice in nature of a summons under Sections 107/112 of the Code on recording evidence, which had been produced before him. The notice was issued in a cyclostyled form by filling in the blanks. The words carrying the import that it was being issued in consequence of a police report merely constituted an irregularity. On joining proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Jia Lai could have taken inspection of the record and could have found that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had acted on the evidence produced before him and not on a police report. The averment in the impugned notice that report had been received from the S. H. O., Sadar Bazar, was a curable irregularity within the scope of Section 537 of the Code. It did not ensure for the recommendation that the notice be quashed. The notice was in the nature of summons requiring Jia Lai to appear before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to show cause as to why he should not be called upon to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year for keeping peace. The irregularity in the notice did not relieve Jia Lai from appearing before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to show cause.

5. No error, omission or irregularity in a complaint, summons, warrants, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before a Criminal Court during a trial would vitiate the proceedings unless such error, omission or irregularity or misdirection is found in fact to have occasioned a failure of justice. The recommendation made in disregard of that aspect is declined. Jia Lai and others will have to comply with the notices issued to them by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

6. With these observations, the petition is disposed of.


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