JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAIPUR Vs. SMT. SAROJ DEVI
LAWS(RAJ)-1996-12-64
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on December 13,1996

Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Saroj Devi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.A.A. Khan, J. - (1.) In this case the learned trial Court has discharged the respondent of the offences Under sections 31, 32 and 33 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982. The complaint was filed in the year 1989 and the impugned order was passed on 27.9.91 after the pendency of the case, without commencement of any trial, for more than 2 years. Offences Under sections 31 and 32 are punishable with fine only. Offence Under section 33 is punishable with fine or imprisonment which may extent upto three months. The facts of the case squarely attract the application of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of 'Common Cause' a Registered society through its Director v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1619 in Clause 2(a) and 2(b) as under: "2(a) Where Criminal proceedings are pending regarding traffic offences in any Criminal Court tor more than two years on account of non serving summons to the accused or for any other reason whatsoever, the Court may discharge the accused and close the cases. 2(b) Where the cases pending in Criminal Courts for more than two years under Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force and compoundable with permission of the Court and if in such cases trial have still not commenced, the Criminal Court shall, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and other parties represented before it or their advocates, discharge or acquit the accused, as the case may be, and close such cases."
(2.) Undisputedly the offence Under sections 31, 32 and 33 are compoundable Under section 77 and are non-cognizable Under section 75 of the J.D.A. Act, 1982. In view of the specific directions of the Apex Court the impugned order cannot be termed as invalid or improper or unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. I may agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case being triable as a summons case the provisions of Section 258 Criminal Procedure Code had no application to it but this legal position does not alter the result of this litigation. In view of the above the petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.