SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order, dated 8.7.1996, passed by Sri B. Basar, learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Roing, in Case No. ELN/4/96 under Section 167 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, arising out of contravention of the order dated 11.4.1996 (Annexure 'A' to the revision petition) passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district, Roing, under Section 160 of the said Act.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present revision petition may, in brief, be stated as follows : By order, dated 11.4.1996 (Annexure A to the revision petition) made under Section 160 of the said Act, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley district, Roing, as District Election Officer, passed an order requisitioning the residential quarter No. ENGG/1V/241 belonging to Public Works Department, Roing, stating therein to the effect that the said quarter, which was lying vacant, had been requisitioned for utilization thereof for election purposes by the Extra Assistant Commissioner (J). This requisition order was addressed to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Roing. The Executive Engineer, PWD, Roing, acting upon this requisition order, passed an order on the same day, i.e., on 11.4.1996, canceling allotment of the said quarter and directing the petitioner to hand over the same to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner and District Election Officer, Roing, on 12.4.1996 (A/N). The petitioner did not hand over the quarter to the authority concerned and approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereupon this Court passed an order, on 15.5.1996, in Civil Rule No. 2242, issuing rule and suspending the operation of the order, dated 11.4.1996, aforementioned. Upon being reported by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Roing, that the petitioner had refused to accept the said requisition order, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Roing, sent the said report to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Roing, for registering a case and for taking action in accordance with law. Acting upon this order, Case No. ELN/4/96 aforementioned was registered. In course of time upon appearance of the petitioner as accused in the said case, learned Court below passed the impugned order, dated 8.7.1996, aforementioned explaining to the petitioner particulars of offence under Section 167 of the said Act for contravention of provision of Section 160 thereof. The petitioner pleaded not guilty thereto and the case was fixed for evidence on 5.8.1996. It is this order, which stands impugned in this revision.

(3.) By the present application made under Section 482 Cr.PC, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to set aside and quash the impugned order, his case being, briefly stated, thus : The quarter, in question, was not vacant ; rather, the same was already in his occupation and he was, suddenly, not in a position to vacate the same. This order was passed on a wrong presumption that the quarter was lying vacant. The petitioner was never served with the requisition order, dated 11.4.1996, aforementioned. In view of the fact that the petitioner had already challenged the validity and legality of the said requisition order in the Civil Rule No. 2242/96 aforementioned, the criminal proceeding launched against him was without jurisdiction. The order of requisition, dated 11.4.1996, aforementioned is patently beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 167 of the said Act and non-compliance thereof, even if true, could not have legally led to initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 167 of the said Act and, hence, not only the initiation, but even the continuation of the proceedings is in abuse of the process of the Court. There was no willful contravention by the petitioner of any valid order made under Section 167 of the said Act.