Anil Singh Chouhan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

,,,,,

The petitioner, aggrieved by order dated 11.11.2016 and 06.01.2018 of the Special Judge, Anticorruption, Dhar; whereby the learned Trial Court has",,,,,

forfeited amount of Rs.5,000/- of bond furnished by the petitioner for his appearance before the court for recording his statement in the criminal trial",,,,,

pending against the accused, has preferred the present petition.",,,,,

(2) Short facts of the case are that a criminal case was registered against the accused Hariprasad Gehlot for the offence punishable under Sections 7,,,,,

and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered at the Special Police Establishment, Bhopal, Lokayukt Office, Indore. The",,,,,

petitioner was Investigating Officer of the crime. He filed charge-sheet before the Trial Court. The criminal case is pending trial .,,,,,

(3) The presence of the petitioner was required for recording his statement before the Trial Court as he was the Investigating Officer of the case. The,,,,,

Trial Court issued summon for his appearance, which was served on him, thereafter vide order dated 26.08.2016 the Trial Court issued bailable",,,,,

warrant in the sum of Rs.5,000/- for his appearance before the court on 26.09.2016, which was duly served on him. But the petitioner did not appear",,,,,

before the court on the date fixed for his appearance i.e. 26.09.2016. The learned Trial Court forfeited his bail bond and issued show cause notice as,,,,,

to why the amount of the bond be not recovered from him and fixed 11.11.2016 for reply. The petitioner chose not to file reply of the show cause,,,,,

notice and nor he appeared before the court on the date fixed for this purpose i.e. 11.11.2016. The Trial Court ordered to recover the amount of bond,,,,,

from his salary vide order dated 10.11.2017.,,,,,

(4) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court was having no powers to issue bailable warrant against the present,,,,,

appellant. It has no power to forfeit the amount under Section 446-A of Cr.P.C.. At the most action can be taken against any witness under Section,,,,,

350 of Cr.P.C. and maximum Rs.100/- fine can be imposed on him. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court is illegal. Learned counsel placed reliance",,,,,

on the case of Katuri Sreenivasa Rao V/s. State of A.P. and others reported in 2003 Cri. L.J. 1640, in which it is held that in case of non attendance",,,,,

of witness maximum punishment is a fine of Rs.100/- and nothing more, but this case is related to the proceedings under Section 350 of Cr.P.C.,",,,,,

which is not the subject matter of the present petition. Therefore, this case law has no help to the appellant.",,,,,

(5) Learned counsel for the appellant repeatedly and emphatically insisted upon pre and post proceedings of the relevant proceedings of the Trial,,,,,

Court and several time emphasised that earlier a summon was issued to the appellant for 25.08.2016 and on that day Holiday was declared for the,,,,,

Court, therefore, the appellant did not appear before the Court. On the next day i.e. 26.08.2016 the case was taken up by the Trial Court and it",,,,,

directly issued bailable warrant against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant again and again emphasised that the appellant was having,,,,,

heavy work load and was indulged in so many official duties assigned to him. He drew my attention towards Rojnamcha entry of 26.09.2016, which is",,,,,

the date fixed by the Trial Court for his appearance and submitted that he was busy with the law and order duties due to ensuing Moharram, Navratri",,,,,

and Dashara etc. He patrolled his area, convened so many meetings and was very much busy with the law and order situation. He also argued that",,,,,

the learned Judge of the Trial Court is use to register such type of proceedings against the witnesses and so many MJCs have been registered against,,,,,

many witnesses. He prayed to set aside the order dated 11.11.2016 and 06.01.2018.,,,,,

(6) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer stating that the appellant is negligent towards his appearance, even after service of",,,,,

bailable warrant he did not honour the process of the court. He has no respect towards the Court. His attitude shows that he even chose not to file,,,,,

reply to the show cause notice issued by the Trial Court and instead of approaching and apologizing from the Trial Court, he has directly come before",,,,,

this court, therefore, he is not entitled for any leniency.",,,,,

(7) I have considered rival contentions and perused the order and documents filed by the appellant.,,,,,

(8) The petitioner has not disputed that bailable warrant for his presence on 26.09.2016 was duly served on him and in compliance of the warrant he,,,,,

did not appear before the Court. It is further not disputed that the learned Trial Court opened MJCÂ (Miscellaneous Judicial Case) and issued show,,,,,

cause notice to the appellant which again was duly served, but the appellant did not reply the show cause notice. In that situation learned Trial Court",,,,,

was left with no option except to consider and forfeit the amount of the bail bond furnished by the appellant for his appearance.,,,,,

(9) It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner could not appear before the learned Trial Court due to his official duty. On the date fixed,,,,,

for his appearance he was busy with security arrangements in town as the Hon'ble Governor of Madhya Pradesh was going to come at Ujjain,",,,,,

therefore, he was busy with VIP arrangements as per the official instructions, but no supporting documents have been produced by the petitioner. A",,,,,

copy of Rojnamcha dated 26.09.2016 is filed with the present appeal which shows that on that day the appellant was remained at Police Station,,,,,

upto 12.00 and thereafter he visited several places of area falling under jurisdiction of his Police Station. He was busy with Jansampark (public,,,,,

relation). He discussed some isses with some persons, convened meetings, checked the suspects, visited some religious places, checked ATM and",,,,,

returned to the Police Station at 16.35 and thereafter proceeded towards Jhabua for search of an accused of Crime No.919/2016 registered under,,,,,

Section 392 of IPC. It would be better to read both entries of this Rojnamcha in its original words which reads thus :-,,,,,

udy jkts ukepk lkUgk Fkkuk egkdky mTtSu,,,,,

46,izLFkku,"26@09@2016

16%39","fujh{kd@ANI

L SINGH

CHAUHAN/","jokuk eSa

fujh{kd

pkSgku e;

vkj- 1

vijk/k","bl le; lwpuk gS fd eSa

fujh{kd vfuy flga pkSgku

gejkg vkj- 04

Hkojyky ds vijk/k dzekad

919@31-08-2016 /kkjk

% 392

Hkknfo esa eky

eqfwYte dh irkjlh

,,,"123/

430018538","foospuk

esa

>kcqvk","gsrq Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd

egksn; ds vkns'k ij ftyk

>kcqvk rjQ jokuk gqvk

A