SHETHNA, J. - (1.) IN the first session, request was made to adjourn the case on the ground that Mr. H. S. S. Kharlia, learned counsel for the petitioner was not available and the matter was kept in second session. Mr. Sanjay Deshantri, appears in second sitting at 20. 00 PM. Once again he prayed time on the ground that Mr. Kharlia is out of station. That request was rejected in view of the fact that this petition was having no substance.
(2.) AS per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner was earlier arrested in criminal case registered against him under FIR No. 278/94 for the offence punishable under Sec. 8/18 of the NDPS Act on 9. 12. 94. Ultimately at the end of trial, he was acquitted on 25. 6. 97. However, when he was in custody and to be produced before the Magistrate, he tried to abscond on 16. 12. 94, but his attempt failed and he was apprehended immediately. For this, another criminal case under FIR No. 201/94 was registered against him. In that case, on the conclusion of trial, he was found guilty and was convicted under Sec. 224 IPC and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- by Judgment and order dated 22. 6. 95. Recently, the petitioner has been elected as Sarpanch and one Surjeet Singh who lost election against him, filed an application against the petitioner under Sec. 177 read with Sec. 175 of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act on 11. 4. 2000 before the Distt. Collector, Fatehabad stating that he was convicted in the past. According to the petitioner, he came to know only at that time that he was convicted on 22. 6. 95. Copy of the said judgment dated 22. 6. 95 is at Annex. 2. On receiving the copy of the judgment dated 22. 6. 95 (Annex. 2), the petitioner approached the Officer Incharge of Copying Section of Distt. & Sessions Judge, Bhilwara for the copy of Judgment dated 22. 6. 95 alongwith some other documents by an application dated 15. 5. 2000 (Annex. 3 ). The said application was rejected on that very day on the ground that the record of the case was already destroyed under the rules, therefore, it was not possible to give copy of the judgment and documents of the case as prayed for. This has been challenged by the petitioner by way of this petition. It seems that the petitioner is not aware about the General Rules (Criminal), 1980 under which the records of the cases have to be classified into two categories as provided under Rule 148 of Chapter XIII. Under Class I, the cases in which the offences charged are punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years, with or without fine and cases not otherwise provided for in these rules including cases under Sec. 108 of the Code and Class II relates to other type of cases. Under rule 149, the entire record in Class II shall be destroyed on the expiration of one year. Part B in Class I shall be destroyed on the expiration of two years and Part A in Class I shall be destroyed on the expiration of three years, except in case provided, reckoning from the 30th June or 31st December next ensuing after the order disposing of the case. This is a case in which the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 224 IPC and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 50/- and under the rules, record was required to be destroyed and, therefore, it is stated in the impugned order passed on the application submitted by petitioner dt. 15. 5. 2000 (Annex. 3) that record was already destroyed, therefore, copy of the same cannot be given.
(3.) IN view of the above, the prayer made by the petitioner in this petition to reconstitute the file of criminal case No. 1/95 of Judicial Magistrate, Bijoliya and to supply the copies of the documents and Judgment, cannot be granted. Hence in view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. .;