advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Tuesday, May 8, 2018

the offence has committed by the Advocates, this Court considers it necessary to issue certain directions because the offence in this case was committed in a court room while Presiding Officer was sitting and that too by Advocates, who are also the part of the system. No one can be permitted to pollute the pious stream of justice delivery system. = “(i) It is prayed to include section 307 of IPC on the charge sheet submitted in Crime No. 419 of 2010, police station Wazirganj, Lucknow. (ii) It is prayed to impose other relevant sections of IPC or other Acts against accuseds in crime no. 419/2010, police station Wazirganj, LKO that Lordship deems fit, just and proper for assaulting in Judicial Custody even after Hon'ble High Court Security Instructions. (iii) It is prayed to frame proper charges against Jameeruddin Siddiqui (exADJ). (iv) It is prayed to take cognizance against the concerned Emergency Medical Officer of Adarsh Karavas on 24/06/2010. (v) It is prayed to regard para 8 of Counter Affidavit as a key to discover all the accused. (vi) It is prayed to grant reasonable time for the completion of Investigation as Lordship deems, just, fit and proper. (vii) It is prayed to pass any other order in favour of the petitioners.”

1
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO.  648  OF  2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2082 of 2016)
OSAMA AZIZ AND ANR.      …..Appellant(s)
:Versus:
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.     ....Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. This appeal, by special leave, filed by the appellants inperson,
  is   against   the   judgment   and   orders   dated   10th
January,   2013   and   19th  March,   2013   passed   by   the   High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in Case
U/S 482/378/407 No.60 of 2013.  The first order dated 10th
January, 2013 is obviously an interlocutory order but also
2
rejecting reliefs (i) to (iv) claimed in the petition filed by the
appellants. The petition came to be finally disposed of by the
High Court vide judgment and order dated 19th March, 2013.
Accordingly,   both   these   orders   have   been   assailed   in   the
present appeal.  The copy of the petition filed before the High
Court   has   not   been   included   in   the   appeal   paper   book.
However, from the impugned order dated 10th January, 2013,
it is noticed that the first prayer in the petition filed before the
High Court was to direct the investigating agency to include
Section   307  of  Indian  Penal  Code  (“IPC”,  for  short)   in  the
charge­sheet filed against three persons before the Trial Court
in   Crime   No.419   of   2010,   P.S.   Wazirganj,   Lucknow.   The
second prayer is to include other relevant sections of IPC or
other Acts against the accused in the aforementioned crime.
The   third   prayer   is   to   frame   proper   charges   against
Jameeruddin   Siddiqui   (ex­ADJ).   Fourth   prayer   is   to   take
cognizance against the Emergency Medical Officer of Adarsh
Karavas on 24th June, 2010. The fifth prayer is to discover all
the accused on the basis of the clue given in paragraph 8 of
3
the Counter Affidavit. The sixth prayer is to grant reasonable
time for completion of investigation and seventh prayer is to
pass any other or further orders in favour of the appellants. In
the   impugned   order   dated   19th  March,   2013,   the   prayers
mentioned in the subject petition filed by the appellants before
the High Court have been reproduced as under:
“2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners have
challenged the investigation pending in Case No. CB 447 of
2010, arising out of case crime no. 419 of 2010 (State Vs.
Airaz Siddiqui & Others), police station Wazirganj, Lucknow
investigated   by   the   C.B.   CID,   Luckonw   and   has   made
following prayer­ 
“(i) It is prayed to include section 307 of IPC on the charge
sheet submitted in Crime No. 419 of 2010, police station
Wazirganj, Lucknow. 
(ii) It is prayed to impose other relevant sections of IPC or
other Acts against accuseds in crime no. 419/2010, police
station Wazirganj, LKO that Lordship deems fit, just and
proper for assaulting in Judicial Custody even after Hon'ble
High Court Security Instructions. 
(iii)   It   is   prayed   to   frame   proper   charges   against
Jameeruddin Siddiqui (exADJ). 
(iv) It is prayed to take cognizance against the concerned
Emergency   Medical   Officer   of   Adarsh   Karavas   on
24/06/2010. 
(v) It is prayed to regard para 8 of Counter Affidavit as a key
to discover all the accused. 
(vi) It is prayed to grant reasonable time for the completion of
Investigation as Lordship deems, just, fit and proper. 
(vii) It is prayed to pass any other order in favour of the
petitioners.”
2. As regards reliefs (i), (ii) and (iii), the same stood disposed
of in terms of the impugned order dated 10th January, 2013,
4
and rest of the reliefs were considered and answered by the
High Court vide impugned order dated 19th March, 2013.
3. In   substance,   the reliefs claimed in the   petition filed
before the High Court were in reference to the criminal case
registered   against   private   respondents   and   other   accused,
being Crime No.419 of 2010.  In the order dated 10th January,
2013, the High Court noted that the charge­sheet was already
filed in respect of the said crime before the competent Court
against three accused for offences punishable under Sections
147, 323, 504 and 353 of IPC and the Court was informed by
the   AGA  that  investigation   against   other  accused  was  still
going on. It is in that context the High Court observed at the
end of the impugned order dated 10th January, 2013 that so
far as reliefs (i), (ii) and (iii) are concerned, the appellants may
approach the Trial Court. This is one aspect to which our
attention   has   been   drawn   by   appellant   No.1,   who   has
appeared   in­person.     As   regards   this   grievance   of   the
appellants, we are in agreement with the High Court that the
appellants are free to pursue their legal remedies before the
5
Trial Court for inclusion of Section 307 of IPC in Crime No.419
of   2010.   Needless   to   observe   that   even   if   charge­sheet   in
respect of the said offence has been filed, it is open to the Trial
Court at the appropriate stage to frame the charge for offence
under Section 307 of IPC if the material on record justifies
framing of such a charge, including to amend the charges and
also to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of
offence. None of the observations made by the High Court in
the  impugned  orders  will  be  any  impediment  for  the  Trial
Court to do so. This must assuage the apprehension of the
appellants   that   even   if   there   is   evidence   to   indicate
commission of offence under Section 307, such a charge has
not been framed against the concerned accused. We leave that
question open to be considered by the Trial Court on its own
merits and in accordance with law. 
4. As regards relief (iv), the High Court, in its impugned
order   dated  10th  January,   2013,   has   noted   that   the   same
pertained to some other case unconnected with Crime No.419 of
2010,  arising   from   an   independent   act   of   commission  and
6
omission   in  the   discharge   of   duty   for   which   no   criminal
proceeding is pending in the Court. As a result, the High Court
declined to issue any direction in respect of prayer clause (iv).
As regards prayer clause (v), the High Court observed that the
same   will   be   considered   after   submission   of   the   progress
report   by   the   concerned   Investigating   Officer   in   respect   of
Crime No.419 of 2010.   Thus, the Court finally disposed of
reliefs (i) to (iv) with the observation that no further action is
needed in respect of the said reliefs.
5. The matter was then taken up by the High Court on 19th
March, 2013, for considering the remaining reliefs (v) to (vii).
The grievance made by the appellants before the High Court
has been considered in the following words:
“The petitioner has made only seven reliefs in his petition.
Since final order has already been passed with regard to the
abovementioned four reliefs, only relief no. 5 to 7 needs to be
considered. Admittedly police has filed charge sheet in this
case. So far as relief No. 5 is concerned, it relates to discover
the accused persons during investigation and if the police
has not submitted charge sheet against them, the petitioner
himself   can   adduce   evidence   before   the   trial   court.
Thereafter   the   accused   persons   may   be   summoned   in
exercise of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Relief no. 6
has also become infructuous as by means of this prayer, the
petitioner   prayed   for   relief   to   complete   the   investigation
7
within   a   stipulated   period,   therefore,   it   has   rendered
infructuous by submission of the charge sheet.
4. It is submitted by the petitioner that the investigation is
per   se   incorrect   because   as   per   the   conclusions   of   the
investigation, there were so many persons, who committed
the  offence but  charge  sheet  has  been filed only against
three  accused  persons  under  Section  147  IPC  also.   It   is
further submitted that to constitute an offence under Section
147   IPC   at   least   five   persons   should   have   been   chargesheeted.
No other ground was pressed into service by the
petitioner in his argument.
5. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that in this case prayer has
been   made   to   interfere   in   the   investigation   and   to   issue
certain   directions   to   the   Investigating   Officer   and   these
prayers   have   rendered   infructuous   as   police   has   already
submitted charge sheet.
6. It transpires from the perusal of the record that in this
case F.I.R. was lodged at case crime no. 419 of 2010 at
police station Wazirganj, district Lucknow with the allegation
that   accused   Airaz   Ahmad   Siddiqui,   Advocate   with   the
intention to create his influence in the area had lodged a
false report under Section 147, 323, 336, 504 & 506 IPC,
police station Chowk, district Lucknow at case crime no. 24
of 2009 after taking the police under his pressure and in
collusion with police got a false charge sheet submitted in
court.   Feeling   aggrieved   by   the   said   charge   sheet,   the
petitioner moved a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before
this Court, which was dismissed with the direction to the
court  concerned  to dispose of the bail application of  the
petitioner in the light of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs.
State of U.P. reported in [2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)]. When the
petitioner   was   present   for   his   bail   before   the   court
concerned, then the accused persons, namely, Airaz Ahmad
Siddiqui, Iraj Ahamad Siddiqui, his father Jamaruddin (Ex.
ADJ),   Aamir   Nakvi,   Advocate,   Pradeep,   Advocate   Saraan
Kahn, Advocate, Sahil, Advocate and a friend of Iraj Ahmad
Zuber and Tarik along with other persons entered into the
court room and started beating him with kick and fists and
Danda while the petitioner was in judicial custody. At that
time, Presiding Officer was present in Court. He made an
effort   for   his   rescue.   His   mother   made   an   effort   for   the
rescue of the petitioner then Iraz Ahmad also caused her
injuries.   Thereafter   the   police   force   was   called   and   the
8
accused persons ran away from there and the petitioner was
sent for medical examination to District Jail, Lucknow. After
investigation,   police   submitted   charge   sheet   only   against
three accused persons and the petitioner was not satisfied
with the investigation. Result of the investigation was to the
effect that several persons took part in the incident but their
identity could not be ascertained, hence charge sheet was
filed against three accused persons.
Since   the   investigation   has   already   been   completed
and charge sheet has been filed, therefore, the submission of
the petitioner that the investigation is per se illegal because
charge sheet has been filed only against three persons under
Section 147 IPC, which could not have been filed against less
than five persons. But this Court is not satisfied with this
argument as the investigation has revealed that offence was
committed by several persons but the identity of other coaccused
persons could not be ascertained, therefore, there
was no illegality in submission of charge sheet under Section
147   IPC.   The   offence   was   committed   by   an   unlawful
assembly and identity of only three accused persons could
be ascertained, who were members of unlawful assembly,
therefore, submission of charge sheet including Section 147
IPC only against three accused persons cannot be said to be
illegal in any manner. But keeping in view the facts of the
case, the petitioner may raise his grievance before the court
concerned.
But keeping in view the manner in which, the offence
has  committed  by  the  Advocates,   this   Court   considers   it
necessary to issue certain directions because the offence in
this case was committed in a court room while Presiding
Officer was sitting and that too by Advocates, who are also
the part of the system. No one can be permitted to pollute
the pious stream of justice delivery system.
7.   Hence,   it   is   provided   that   if   the   petitioner   raise   his
grievance before the learned Magistrate concerned, the same
shall   be   considered   and   decided   by   the   court   below   in
accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. This Court
is also conscious about the security of the petitioner, hence,
this Court considers it necessary to issue certain direction to
ensure the safety of the petitioner. Therefore, it is hereby
directed that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow
shall   provide   sufficient   security   to   the   petitioner   for   his
appearance before the court below on each date fixed from
9
his residence to the court and thereafter from the court to
his residence so long as danger to his security persists. The
District   Judge   shall   also   supervise   that   the   petitioner   is
provided sufficient security to pursue the matter before the
court   and   shall   also   ensure   that   no   hindrance,   by   any
person, is created in his right to move the court for getting
justice.
8.   In   view   of   the   above,   though   the   petition   is   hereby
dismissed but direction as indicated above are issued in the
interest of justice.
9. Ordered accordingly.”
We   must   clarify   that   we   have   reproduced   the   aforequoted
portion from the impugned order dated 19th March, 2013 only
to highlight the relevant portion. We may not be understood to
have affirmed any observation therein or on the merits of the
controversy.
6. According to the appellants, the observation so made by
the High Court will come in their way in pursuing the criminal
case. We are not impressed by the said grievance inasmuch as
the High Court had itself made it clear that all aspects will
have to be considered by the Trial Court at the appropriate
stage.   The   High   Court   was   cognizant   of   the   fact   that   the
allegations against the persons involved in the commission of
crime were very serious. The High Court has then observed
that as charge­sheet has been filed only against three persons,
10
all   contentions   available   to   the   appellants   could   be   raised
before the Trial Court for being decided in accordance with
law.
7. We reiterate that the none of the observation made by the
High Court will come in the way of the appellants in pursuing
the criminal cases and for taking the same to its logical end, in
accordance with law.   The Trial Court shall consider every
aspect of the matter that will be brought to its notice by the
appellants, on its own merits, objectively.
8. Besides this, no other aspect is required to be considered
by this Court even though in the prayer clause of the special
leave   petition,   the   appellants   have   asked   for   reliefs   much
beyond the lis that was before the High Court in Petition No.60
of 2013.  Notably, in the prayer clause of the memo of special
leave   petition,   no   relief   has   been   claimed   to   assail   the
impugned judgment and orders of the High Court as such.
What has been prayed is as follows: 
“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may graciously be pleased to:
11
A. Direct an Agency other than the State to discover the extent
of   assault   of   petitioners   in   Court   room   in   Case   Crime
No.419/2010 of P.S. Wazirganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
B. Punish and penalize Respondent Nos.4 and 5 for polluting
the   judiciary   as   Additional   Government   Advocate   and
Central   Government   counsel   after   becoming   accused   of
unlawful assembly.
C. Judge the bails of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in view of MB
6794 of 2011 and MB 5461 of 2011 as compared to the Bail
No.4320 of 2011 of Respondent No.4 from the High Court, in
Case Crime No.419/2010 of P.S. Wazirganj, Lucknow.
D. And pass such further order(s), as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
We may overlook this aspect as the appellants are pursuing
this appeal in­person. 
9. Accordingly,   we   dispose   of   this   appeal   with   the
observations made hitherto. While parting with the case, we
may observe that if the trial of subject Crime No.419 of 2010
has still not commenced, all concerned must take necessary
steps in that behalf and ensure that the trial is concluded
expeditiously.
10. A copy of this order be brought to the notice of the Trial
Court   by   the   Public   Prosecutor   appearing   before   the   Trial
12
Court, within two weeks from the date of its receipt. It will also
be open to the appellants to produce a copy of this order
before the Trial Court, if so advised.
11. Ordered accordingly.
.………………………….CJI.
(Dipak Misra)
…………………………..….J.
        (A.M. Khanwilkar)
…………………………..….J.
        (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)
New Delhi;
April  27, 2018.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.