High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
VISHWAJEET v. SMT.SATYAWANTI & Ors - CRM-269-MA-2005  RD-P&H 2070 (28 March 2006)
DATE OF DECISION: 18.4.2006
SMT.SATYAWANTI AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN
PRESENT:-Mr.N.D.Achint, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.
MEHTAB S.GILL, J.
Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has argued that the primary ground taken by the learned trial Court for acquitting the respondents, was that sanction was not obtained from the appropriate authority for prosecuting them. Appellant was convicted in criminal case No.389 of 7.11.1994/25.11.2003 vide judgment/order dated 10.1.2005/19.1.2005 under Sections 332 and 353 IPC.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment.
Occurrence had taken place on 6.10.1994 and complaint was filed on 30.1.1995. Vishwajeet PW1 has stated that he went to the Superintendent of Police and lodged a complaint with him. Ajit Singh PW2 has stated that he had kept a copy of the application, which had been submitted to the Superintendent of Police for taking action. Copy of this application has not been brought on record. Trial Court has rightly held that the delay of four months in filing the complaint has not been adequately explained. Sanction under Section 197 Cr.PC was not obtained by the complainant. Occurrence had taken place allegedly in the course of the official duties of the respondents.
We do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court. Dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.