satbir singh vs. Anna hazare and oths


satbir singh vs. Anna hazare and oths

                CENTRAL -ROOM NO.32: TIS HAZARI 


 ID No: 02401R0156892012
   CR 58/2012

Sh. Satbir Singh            


 1.Sh.Anna Hazare        
 2.Ms. Kiran Bedi           
 3.Sh.Shanti Bhushan   
 4.Sh.Prashant Bhushan
 5.Sh.Arvind Kejriwal    


Sh.Satbir Singh
S/o Sh.Tokh Ram
R/o Naya Gaon, PO Bikaner
Distt. Rewari, Haryana
Presently at: Village Jhuljuli
Post Ghumanhera, Old Chaupal,
Najafgarh, Delhi­73.                        
                                                              Revisionist / Complainant


1.Sh.Anna Hazare        
2.Ms. Kiran Bedi           
3.Sh.Shanti Bhushan   
4.Sh.Prashant Bhushan
5.Sh.Arvind Kejriwal     
All Members of India Against Corruption
A­119, Kaushambi Ghaziabad (UP)   
                                                   Respondents / Accused

Revision against the impugned order dated 17.3.2012 Date of institution : 09.04.2012 Date of final hearing : 13.04.2012 Date of final order : 13.04.2012 Page 1/7 of Revision Satbir Singh Vs. Anna Hazare & Ors dt.13.4.2012 ORDER ON REVISION

1. This revision has been preferred by complainant against the order of Ld. MM dated 17.03.2012 whereby an application preferred by Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi seeking withdrawal of summons issued to him as a witness, was allowed.

2. I have heard arguments of Ld. Counsel for revisionist/complainant Ms. Chitra Mal from Legal Aid. I have perused the revision file as well as TCR.

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision as per complaint preferred before Ld. MM are that complainant Satbir Singh filed a criminal complaint against Sh. Anna Hazare, Ms. Kiran Bedi, Shri Shanti Bhushan, Sh.Prashant Bhushan and Shri Arvind Kejriwal on 01.09.2011 alleging commission of offences punishable U/s 121/121­A/143/147/283/290/500/504/34/120­B IPC. It is case of the complainant that these persons have conspired to defame and bring this repute to the Govt. of India the office of Prime Minister of India, The Parliament, The Members of Parliament and Ministers. Under the conspiracy Houses of State Functionaries were gheroed (cordoned) , movement of traffic was obstructed and piece was disturbed. With ulterior motives they instigated general public to create nuisance by blocking the roads and damaging the public and Govt. properties. They misbehaved with Ministers , police officials and other functionaries. They are working in tandem against Govt. of India, its policies and the Constitution and all this tantamount to organising unlawful assemblies so as to wage war against the State.

4. It is also pleaded that thousands of people are being made to undertake hunger Page 2/7 of Revision Satbir Singh Vs. Anna Hazare & Ors dt.13.4.2012 strikes. Around 2000 people had to be admitted to hospitals during which at least one died of the same . All this caused emotional hurt and shock to the complainant. Several complaints were made to police followed by filing of Criminal complaint with the Court.

5. After filing of this complainant a status report was sought by Ld. Magistrate during which court was supplied with post mortem report of 21 years old deceased Sandeep Kumar S/o Late Shri Sadhu Ram of Fatehabad, Haryana. Vide order dated 05.11.2011 the Sec. 156 (3) Cr. P.C. of the complainant was dismissed and matter was posted for recording of CE U/s 200 Cr. P.C.

6. Thereafter revisionist is revealed to have moved an application dated 23.12.2011 for summoning of Media Persons apart from Shri Manu Shinghvi as witnesses. This application was allowed by Ld. MM on 23.12.2011 itself. Complainant filed process fee which led to issuance of summons to Shri Manu Shinghvi and other Media Persons as witnesses for 25.01.2012. However on that date Dr. Shinghvi moved an exemption application which was allowed by Ld. MM . On the same day Dr. Shinhgvi moved another application seeking withdrawal of issuance of summons qua him. It is this application which was allowed by Ld. MM vide the impugned order. Hence this revision.

7. At the onset I am constrained to observe that after Ld. MM dismissed the application U/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. of the complainant and per se took cognizance of the complaint while posting it for examination of complainant U/s 200 Cr. P.C., Ld. Trial MM ought Page 3/7 of Revision Satbir Singh Vs. Anna Hazare & Ors dt.13.4.2012 not have summoned additional witnesses without first examining the complainant U/s 200 Cr. P.C. The stage of examining additional witnesses U/s 202 Cr. P.C. would have arrived only after recording of statement of complainant U/s 200 Cr. P.C.

8. Be that as it may, as far as this revision in hand is concerned, I have my reservations on the maintainability of the same in so far as the impugned order passed by Ld. MM dated 17.03.2012 appears to be an interlocutory order as mentioned in Section 397 (2) Cr. P.C. This order does not decide any legal right of the complainant in any manner. Law is well settled on as to what orders are interlocutory and which order of a Trial Court can be challenged in Revision before Sessions or Hon"ble High Court.

9. It is a settled legal proposition that even an order of taking of cognizance ( B.S. Rao Vs. T.V. Sharma, 1976 Crl. LJ 902) , granting bail (Neelu Vs. State , 1983 Crl.LJ 1590) or canceling a bail (Bhola Vs. State , 1979 Crl. LJ 718) too are interlocutory orders .

10.In so far as in case titled Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam , JT 2009 (4) SC 164 Hon"ble Supreme Court has ruled that an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is interlocutory and is not amenable to challenge in a revision under Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. and held that:

"Both the orders i.e. one on the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397 (2) , revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction."
Page 4/7 of Revision Satbir Singh Vs. Anna Hazare & Ors dt.13.4.2012
11.In another case titled Amarnath & Ors Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185 , while discussing the term interlocutory order, Hon"ble Supreme Court ruled that ­ "The term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused , or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against the order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail , calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397 (2). But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial can not be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court."
12.In another case titled Central Bank of India Vs. Gokal Chand, AIR 1967 SC 799, Hon"ble Supreme Court ruled that:

"............ orders regarding the summoning of witnesses, discovery, production and inspection of documents, issue of commission for examination of witnesses, inspection of premises, fixing a date of hearing and the admissibility of a document on the relevancy of a question . All these interlocutory orders are steps taken towards the final adjudication and for assisting the parties in the prosecution of their case in the pending proceedings. They regulate the procedure only and do not affect any right or liability of the parties."
13.The above case law categorically shows that the impugned order dropping Dr. Page 5/7 of Revision Satbir Singh Vs. Anna Hazare & Ors dt.13.4.2012 Abhishek Manu Singhvi as a witness is an interlocutory order and the same could not have been challenged in the Revision.

14.Even otherwise its a matter of fact that name of Dr. Singhvi did not find mention in the initial list of witnesses dated 30.08.2011 , which was filed alongwith the complaint . The second list filed by the complainant on 23.12.2011 does not contain any mention that it is an additional list which is meant to supplement the list already available on record. Also this second list does not contain any reference or context qua which Dr. Singhvi was sought to be summoned for deposition.

15.Although during the hearing of this revision, the revisionist has submitted that he intended to summon Dr. Singhvi only because he is Chairman of Standing Committee on Jan Lokpal Bill and he was desirous of ascertaining if Team Anna had sent any suggestions qua improvement of the Lokpal Bill being drafted by our Parliament. During the course of hearing the revisionist has agreed that he ought not have insisted for personal appearance of Dr. Shinghvi and that the requisite information which he was desirous of brining on record could have been done through some official from the said Parliamentary Committee. On this score revisionist has submitted in the court that he was not desirous for summoning Dr. Shinghvi for sensationalising the matter as observed by Ld. MM and that he was actuated only by the pain which he felt qua the loss of life by young Sandeep Kumar for which he considers Team Anna to be responsible.

Page 6/7 of Revision Satbir Singh Vs. Anna Hazare & Ors dt.13.4.2012

16.In view of the above , this revision stands disposed off as not maintainable. Revision file be consigned to RR. Copy of this order be sent to Ld. MM for information. As prayed copy of order be supplied to Revisionist Dasti free of cost. ANNOUNCED & DICTATED IN THE COURT ON 13.04.2012 (SURINDER S. RATHI) ASJ­02:CENTRAL:DELHI 13.04.2012 Page 7/7 of Revision Satbir Singh Vs. Anna Hazare & Ors dt.13.4.2012

Harvard Law Library allegedly has a book bound by Human Skin

A judge cannot assume the power on the basis of his individual perception or notion : SC

Gays , lesbians , bisexuals not third gender : SC

The loud noise at your home even in a day time , if damages hearing of your neighbors is punishable - law of torts

A rape accused could now be convicted on the sole evidence of the victim, even if medical evidence did not prove rape.