TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his chief-examination, proper questions had to be put to him by the prosecutor. The failure to bring formal evidence in respect of sanction for prosecution, in these circumstances, is wholly and squarely that of the public prosecutor in-charge. He should have fully awakened to the neglect or omission on his part at least at the time of arguments on charge. The direction of the revisional court for fresh sanction to be obtained was wholly uncalled for inasmuch as the sanction granted prior to the launching of the complaint is already there and it is that sanction which is relevant. The criminal prosecution of such nature cannot be allowed to be reduced to a mockery, not the least, at the whims of individuals. After all, public interest involved in such prosecution also has to be taken care of - petition is allowed with costs of ₹ 50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks hereof. - CRL.M.C. 2408/2016 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2019 - MR. R.K. GAUBA J. Petitioner Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Vineet Sharma, Advocate. Respondent Through: Mr. Sonam Nagrath, Advocate OR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to in the aforementioned proceedings, was Inspector Customs (Preventive) by whom the complaint had been filed on behalf of the petitioner. The deposition recorded on 09.11.1994 was his part examination-in-chief, which would read thus:- PW1. Sh. S.K.Verma ACO, IGI Airport, New Delhi. On S.A. In September, 1992 I was posted as Inspector Customs at Customs Collectorate, Delhi. On 26.9.92 acting on specific information I alongwith the officers of Customs preventive searched the godown located at Nilothi Mode near G.R. Public School Sri Ram Park, Nangloi in the presence of two independent witnesses and Sh.Vikaram Singh Watchman. Sh. Vikaram Singh opened the godown with the keys available with him and as a result of search ball bearing of foreign origin valued at ₹ 14,57,500/- (MV) were recovered and during the course of the search the documents, packing list having No.1094 of M/s Ameeco Marketing, Dubai, U.A.E. pasted on one of the wooden crates containing details regarding quantity etc and sticker of Ameeco Marketing telephone numbers, destination, C.C.U./KT etc and one debit voucher of M/s. Great India Chemicals, 251 Kamla Market were also seized. On demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 27.04.2010 before this court by criminal revision petition No.344/2010. A learned Single Judge of this court observing that next hierarchical court being the court of sessions, the revision petition was made over to the District Sessions Judge (New Delhi). The revision petition of the petitioner came to be allocated to an Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) in which court it was listed as criminal revision petition No.159/2014. It was eventually decided by order dated 29.10.2015. The ASJ noted some of the above-mentioned proceedings and the fact that no formal proof had been adduced about the sanction for prosecution dated 26.11.1992. He was of the view that the ACMM could have dropped the proceedings but could not have discharged the respondent. On the basis of these conclusions, the impugned order dated 27.04.2010 of ACMM was set aside. It was added by ASJ that if the petitioner wanted to proceed against the respondent, it would have to obtain fresh sanction or get authenticated the sanction from the competent authority and thereafter argue afresh on the question of charge. 11. By virtue of the said order of the revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an entity of the State. The prosecutor had a duty of trust to discharge. He could not assume that the witness would himself offer all the necessary facts. After all, the witness was a public servant holding the rank of an inspector. He required assistance and, for his chief-examination, proper questions had to be put to him by the prosecutor. The failure to bring formal evidence in respect of sanction for prosecution, in these circumstances, is wholly and squarely that of the public prosecutor in-charge. He should have fully awakened to the neglect or omission on his part at least at the time of arguments on charge. The omission to adduce proof of sanction was an issue being raised by the respondent anterior to the order dated 27.01.2010 of the ACMM. The least that the prosecutor could have done at that stage was to move appropriate application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and either examine PW-1 further or to summon any other witness so that the proof of sanction had been tendered. No such steps were taken. Instead, the prosecutor continued to harp on the plea that he had discharged his burden, as if standing on some ego. 15. The fact remains, as is now conceded by the counsel app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
