High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Comrade Shiv Narain Singh Chauhan v. State Of U.P. And Others - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 14436 of 2005  RD-AH 5274 (8 November 2005)
Court No. 54
Criminal Misc. Application No. 14436 of 2005.
Comrade Shiv Narain Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. and others.
Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.
Heard Smt. Renu Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.
The order dated 3.8.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit in case No. 584M of 2005 has been challenged, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The application was filed on the ground that certain pharmacists without having a valid degree are selling medicines, which is stolen from the District Hospital. The allegation was against the accused who was given charge of store of the medicines and was working as Junior Pharmacist on the basis of the order of the Chief Medical Officer. It was further stated that when the fact regarding theft of medicine came to light, adverse entries were given in the character roll. The counsel for the applicant argued that all the details have been mentioned in the application moved by the applicant and since he is a social worker, he thought it proper to bring these offences to the notice of the learned Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit rejected the application on the ground that no application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be moved in the public interest. The argument is that it is immaterial as to who is the complainant and in the event, it appears to the Magistrate that a cognizable offence is made out, it is his duty to pass appropriate orders and a direction to the police station concerned to register and investigate the matter.
Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the applicant on a number of decisions of this Court. The first decision is, Kamaluddin Vs. State of U.P., 2005 (1) J.I.C., 336, (Alld.). In the said case, this Court observed that it was obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to direct the registration of the case and to investigate the matter, in the event, a perusal of application discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Another case relied upon by the counsel is, Rajendra Prasad Mishra Vs. State of U.P., 1994 J.I.C., 216 paragraph 9.
After hearing the counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and on perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned Magistrate has not tried to examine the allegations as to whether it discloses cognizable offence or not. He has rejected the application only because the application was filed in the public interest. The allegations in the application clearly disclose that medicine purchased on the government expenses is stolen and sold by a person who is incharge of the medicines entrusted to him. It was incumbent on the Magistrate to examine as to whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not. It is immaterial as to who is the informant and whether he has any personal interest in the property alleged to be stolen.
In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 3.8.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit in case No. 584M of 2005 is set aside and the case is remanded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit to examine the application in the light of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision and pass a fresh order.
With these observations, this application is finally disposed of .
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.