Hon’ble C.J.I. my faith is losing in judiciary because of sheer tyranny and arbitrariness.


Hon’ble C.J.I. my faith is losing in judiciary because of sheer tyranny and arbitrariness.

  

Add star  

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh

<yogimpsingh@gmail.com>

AttachmentSun, May 24, 2015 at 1:38 PM
To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>
Cc: pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>
Bcc: “hgovup@up.nic.in” <hgovup@up.nic.in>, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, csup <csup@up.nic.in>
To
                      Hon’ble Chief justice of India/ companion Judges of apex court 
Supreme court of India , New Delhi , India
Matter is concerned with the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate  {A.C.J.M. (First)} Court District-Mirzapur .
    Criminal Complaint NO.   -2315/07
     Complainant- Santish Dhar Dubey
                                                                       S/O -Mr. Shiva Nath Dubey
                                                                       Vill+P.O.-Nibee Gaharwar
                                                                     Police station-Vindhyachal
                                                                    Dist-Mirzapur ,Uttar Pradesh
Defendant  – Yogi M. P. Singh
                                                           S/O  -Shree Rajendra Pratap Singh
                                                           Moh-Surekapuram ,Jabalpur Road
                                                             Police station-Katra Kotwali
                                                              Dist-Mirzapur ,Uttar Pradesh
Subject-Your applicant can’t defend the case as section 244 of Cr. P. C. don’t allow your applicant .
Documents-28/08/2006 is missing from paper book, your applicant can’t ask as case is being processed under section 244 of Cr. P. C. When turn of your applicant will come doesn’t know?
The court order dated 12/06/2008 can’t processed as case at the stage of section 244 of Cr. P. C. After three years when A.C.J.M. First court couldn’t get compliance of its order and your applicant repeatedly requested ,then A.C.J.M/ First Sudhakar Ray told me in his chamber that since D.M. Mirzapur suggested district judge Mirzapur to process the case under section 244 of Cr. P. C. And he also suggested error was done by Judge who entertained your plea at the stage of section 244. Hon’ble Sir whether this was not the violation of Independence of judiciary ?
Government of India forwarded my letter to the court of aforesaid A.C.J.M. First for redressal but according to argument dated 22-May-2015 ,A.C.J.M. First articulated this act as violation of independence of judiciary. Hon’ble Sir whether the Governments which is formed by the mandate of people of this country have no moral rights to defend the legal rights of people by suggesting the court to consider grievances submitted before it to seek justice. Hon’ble Sir independence of judiciary is to shield judicial members from undue pressure of executives and bureaucrats instead of to be tyrant. Ipsofacto obvious that undue pressure was created by D.M. Mirzapur not by your applicant by seeking justice from his government.
Whether in the name of independence of judiciary tyranny can be allowed. Whether it is justified to process a summon case under section 244 of criminal penal code. On 6-March-2015  your applicant submitted grievance for redressal before various accountable public functionaries including Additional chief judicial magistrate first Mirzapur. On 17-April-2015 he partly heard the matter and asked me what is the difference if complaint is processed under section 244 and onward instead of chapter 20 of criminal procedure  code. I replied that since my plea is not being considered by the Hon’ble court so in the interest of justice ,please pursue the chapter xx of Cr. P. C. . He called on counsel for complainants but his junior told him that he is busy in the another court. Counsel for complainant with half a dozen juniors entered into court at 3 PM . But A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur had joined at that day so seniors were inviting in their chambers and juniors were coming  to his chamber. As he made the mood to hear case ,he was invited by C.J.M. Mirzapur. He returned back at 4:15 and told us that after taking a glance of the file , hearing will take place on next fixed date as fixed by him 22-May-2015. On 22-May-2015 ,junior was asked to inform his senior to argue in the case. Senior counsel Mr. Kripa Shankar Mishra asked for copy of submitted grievance dated 6-March-2015 and as usual made objection that matter is not concerned with the merit of case but concerned with the process so there is no need to made available the copy to counsel of complainant and your applicant also argued that process has to be done by court so Hon’ble Judge may consider my plea as decision will not affect the merit of case. But according to A.C.J.M. First this will harm to rights of a citizen granted to him according to principle of natural justice. So he passed the order on paper book that copy of letter dated 6-March 2015 be made available to council for complainants and your applicant complied the directive on the same day ipsofacto obvious from annexures which are annexed with this representation.
                                         It would be pertinent to bring out the differences between a summons case and a warrant case from the point of procedure to be adopted for trial of these cases. The differences between the two are as follows:
(1) The Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes two procedures for the trial of a warrant case by Magistrates, namely, one to be adopted by the Magistrate in case instituted on a Police Report while the other in case instituted otherwise than on a Police Report. But there is only one procedure prescribed for trial of a summons case whether it is instituted on a Police Report or a complaint.
(2) The trial of a warrant case as a summons case is a serious irregularity which would vitiate the trial if the accused has been prejudiced. But the trial of a summons case as a warrant-case is only an irregularity which is curable under Section 465 of the Code.
(3) When the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate in a warrant case, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. But in a summon case, the particulars of offence are stated to the accused and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or wishes to defend himself.
(4) Framing of a formal charge is necessary in a warrant case but it is not necessary in a summons case. It is about to eight  years passed but charges were not framed against your applicant and for kind information summon was issued to your applicant and your applicant is on bail. Why processing of case is being done under section 244 of criminal procedure code and most surprising that during  this  longer span not a testimony of single witness was taken. Whether this is not conspiracy to persecute your applicant tyrannically .
(5) In a warrant case, the accused gets more than one opportunity to cross- examine the prosecution witnesses whereas in a summons case he gets only one opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. In eight years no opportunity was provided to your applicant to defend itself.
(6) The Magistrate is empowered to convert a summons case into a warrant case under Chapter XX of the Code but a warrant case cannot be converted into a summons case. Right to reason is the integral part of sound judicial system. But here reason is undue pressure of D.M. Mirzapur as told by Sudhakar Ray then A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur.
                                       This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that It can never be justified to overlook  the rights of citizenry by delivering services in arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap benefit of loopholes in system and depriving poor citizens from right to justice. Therefore it is need of hour to take concrete steps in order to curb grown anarchy in the system. For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
                           ‘Yours  sincerely
                            Yogi M. P. Singh
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India .


2 attachments — Download all attachments
Whether a summon case can be processed under section 244 of Cr.P.C..pdf
786K View as HTML Download
Application sent to Apex court.pdf
371K View as HTML Download

2 comments on Hon’ble C.J.I. my faith is losing in judiciary because of sheer tyranny and arbitrariness.

  1. Government of India forwarded my letter to the court of aforesaid A.C.J.M. First for redressal but according to argument dated 22-May-2015 ,A.C.J.M. First articulated this act as violation of independence of judiciary. Hon'ble Sir whether the Governments which is formed by the mandate of people of this country have no moral rights to defend the legal rights of people by suggesting the court to consider grievances submitted before it to seek justice. Hon'ble Sir independence of judiciary is to shield judicial members from undue pressure of executives and bureaucrats instead of to be tyrant. Ipsofacto obvious that undue pressure was created by D.M. Mirzapur not by your applicant by seeking justice from his government.

  2. Justice is integral part of a democratic republic which must be healthy and transparent.. But it seems that here we have no such judicial system. There is too much tyranny in the judicial function as instead of pursuing criminal procedure code, most possibly these codes are floated.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: