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

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Hon’ble C.J.I. my faith is losing in judiciary because of sheer tyranny and arbitrariness.
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 5 March 2017 at 10:21
To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>

Hon’ble Sir undoubtedly registered post received by office  of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate  {A.C.J.M. (First)} Court ,District court ,District-Mirzapur on 14/09/2015 but envelope still not opened and closed envelope is attached with the paper book . Whether Still we should have faith in judiciary where such arbitrariness and tyranny is rampant. Whether independence of judiciary means to persecute public spirited people through blatant abuse of process of court. How much shameful such unlawful practice we are facing and concerned accountable public functionaries are mute spectators of it. WHETHER REAL face of judiciary is such terrific in this largest democracy in the world which is glorified though pseudo judicial activism.
Booked at      Booked on     Destination   Tariff   Article Type   Delivered at     Delivered on
MIRZAPUR   11/09/2015    MIRZAPUR   27.00  RL               MIRZAPUR             14/09/2015
Detailed Track Events for :  RU201299860IN 
To
                         Chief Justice of India /Companion Judges
                         Supreme court of India ,New Delhi
Prayer-Today A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur denied to accept the papers of plea “In the compliance of order of Hon’ble court passed on 24/08/2015” for processing merely on the ground that it is written in English while he couldn’t show provision which prohibit aggrieved party in court proceedings  to submit representation in English. Please direct the A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur  to accept the aforesaid papers of  plea sent by your applicant through post when he denied . Scanned copy of plea is annexed with this representation.
RU201299860IN  
Booked at      Booked on     Destination   Tariff   Article Type   Delivered at   Delivered on
MIRZAPUR   11/09/2015    MIRZAPUR   27.00  RL       MIRZAPUR   14/09/2015
Detailed Track Events for :  RU201299860IN 
Date    Time   Office Event
14/09/2015    17:24:08         MIRZAPUR   Article Delivered
12/09/2015    09:16:24         MIRZAPUR   Article Undelivered : [DOOR LOCKED / FIRST INTIMATION]
11/09/2015    13:01:57         MIRZAPUR   Article Booked
(iv) Form No.VI should be kept in English. Form No.XI be kept in the regional
language unless the presiding Magistrate prefers that it should be kept in English.
18. (1) Subject to the statutory alternatives in the matter of recording evidence as
contained in Section 275 and 276 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as far as
possible, the Sessions Judges and Judicial Magistrates should record memorandum of
evidence in English in all cases and proceedings.
(6) Attention of the Magistrate is invited to Section 354 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal
procedure,1973, and the following Government Notification, General Administration
Department, No.OFL1066(
ii)M,
dated the 30th April, 1966, published in Government
Gazette. Part IVA,(
Extraordinary), and they are directed that the judgments and orders in
all cases and proceedings shall be written (either in English or in Marathi in Mofussil
Courts (up to and inclusive of Session Courts)) although Marathi is determined to be the
language of the Court.
(7) Provided that Marathi documents in the proceedings shall not be translated into
English unless otherwise directed by the Court.
In the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate  {A.C.J.M. (First)} Court ,District court ,District-Mirzapur .
Criminal Complaint NO.   -2315/07  I.P.C. 500/501 In the compliance of order of Hon’ble court passed on 24/08/2015.
Complainant- Santosh 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

Prayer-Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to correct the error and instead of processing the case under section 244 of Cr.P.C. May be processed under chapter xx of Cr.P.C. .Otherwise it is sheer violation of Apex court Judgement.
With due respect your applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that learned counsel for complainant on 21/08/2015 argued  that
1-on the application of your applicant Gmail is written consequently application is not entertainable. Your applicant argued that application has been already accepted by the earlier judge.
2-according to him Allahabad High court has prescribed that  whatever application be written before the courts be on the legal size paper but this application is on A-4 size paper so court may not entertain the application. Your applicant argued that here provisions of Cr.P.C. And judgments of Apex
court of India and Judgment of Bombay High court based on the Judgment of Apex court of India can not be overlooked on these flimsy grounds.
3-In lower courts applications in English are not allowed so its Hindi version be made available and Hon’ble Juge assured to made available the rulings but ruling still awaited.  Your applicant argued that how your applicant can translate the Judgment passed by the apex court of India and Highcourts as he is not allowed.According to High court rules (General Rules (Civil), 1957 ) 41. Translation to be filed with certain documents. Every document produced by a party or his witness not written in Hindi, Urdu or English shall be accompanied by a correct translation of the document into Hindi written in the Devanagri script. The translation shall bear a certificate of the party’s lawyer to the effect that the translation is correct. If the party is not represented by a lawyer, the Court shall have the translation certified by any person appointed by it in this behalf at the cost of the party concerned.
4-Application is sent through post and court ticket is not affixed  consequently not entertainable by the court. Your applicant argued that in sending the application through post your applicant spent 14 times fund in comparison affixing the court stamp which goes to treasury of Government of India so my intention was quite positive despite this if you hon’ble Sir (A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur) may permit your applicant to correct the application in regard to court ticked ,then he will immediately correct it. Again
366. Exemptions.
Notwithstanding rule 365 no fee shall be chargeable for serving or executing – any process which may be issued by any Court, of its own motion unless the order of the Court is for payment of the necessary process by a party; any process issued a second time in consequence of an adjournment made otherwise than at the instance of a party or an intervenor;
any copy of a warrant, order or certificate posted under 0. XXI, rr. 36, 54 or 96 when the fee chargeable under Article 4 or Article 8, part I, or under Article 4 or Article 7, parts II and III, has been paid; any copy of a summons, notice, order, proclamation or other process posted in a Court house or in the office of a Collector.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
Chapter 20 – Trial Of Summons-Cases By Magistrates
Section 251 – Substance of accusation to be stated When in a summons-case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge.
Section 252 – Conviction on plea of guilty
If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused and may, in his discretion convict him thereon.
     Section 253 – Conviction on plea of guilty in absence of accused in petty cases
1.       Where a summons has been issued under section 206 and the accused desires to plead guilty to the charge without appearing before the Magistrate, he shall transmit to the Magistrate, by post or by messenger, a letter containing his plea and also the amount of fine specified in the summons.
2.       The Magistrate may, in his discretion, convict in his accused in his absence, on his plea of guilty and sentence him to pay the fine specified in the summons, and the amount transmitted by the accused shall be adjusted towards that fine, or where a pleader authorised by the accused in this behalf pleads guilty on behalf of the accused, the Magistrate shall record the plea as nearly as possible in the words used by the pleader and may, in his discretion, convict the accused on such plea and sentence him as aforesaid/
     Section 254 – Procedure when not convicted
1.       If the Magistrate does not convict the accused under section 252 or section 253, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence.
2.       The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.
3.       A Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on such application, require that the reasonable expenses of the witness incurred in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court.
Section 255 – Acquittal or conviction
1.       If the Magistrate, upon taking the evidence referred to in section 254 and such further evidence, if any, as he may, of his own motion, cause to be produced, finds the accused not guilt, he shall record an order of acquittal.
2.       Where the Magistrate does not proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 325 or section 360, he shall, if he finds the accused guilty, pass sentence upon him according to law.
3.       A Magistrate may, under section 252 or section 255, convict the accused of any offence triable under this Chapter which form the facts admitted or proved he appears to have committed, whatever may be the nature of the complaint or summons, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the accused would not be prejudiced thereby.
Section 256 – Non-appearance or death of complainant
1.       If the summons has been issued on complaint and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day:

Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. 2.       The provisions of Sub-Section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non-appearance of the complainant is due to his death.

 Section 257 – Withdrawal of complaint
If a complainant, at any time before a final order is passed in any case under this Chapter, satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint against the accused, or if there be more than one accused, against all or any of them, the Magistrate may permit him to withdraw the same, and shall thereupon acquit the accused against whom the complaint is so withdrawn.
 Section 258 – Power to stop proceedings in certain cases
In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of
proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case release, the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge.
 Section 259 – Power of Court to convert summons-cases into warrant cases
When in the course of the trial of a summons-case relating to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding six months, it appears to the Magistrate that in the interests of justice, the offence should be tried in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases, such Magistrate may proceed to re-hear the case in the manner provided by this Code for the trial of warrant-cases and may recall any witness who may have been examined.
 3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that in the case Smt Premalata Subhas Nabaria vs Shri Paras Shantilal Kankaria on 21-Feb-2011 ,Bombay High court ,Bench S.S. Shinde detail as annexure and summary as follows-Concerned case which you Hon’ble Sir is examining is comes under code earlier punishable with imprisonment 6 months but amended now punishable with maximum two years imprisonment so falls under same ambit. Consequently take a glance of following explanation based on judgement of learned judge in lucid style.   Code is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to two years, or with fine, or with both. As stated earlier, it is admitted position that the case in hand is a summons case. If the case is a summons case and in which maximum sentence can be given is of two years, in that case the Criminal Procedure Code provides scheme of trial under the provisions of Section 251 to 259 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Since the case in hand is a summons case, it was not open for the Trial Court to take recourse to Section 244 or Section245 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Section 244 and 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows : 244. Evidence for prosecution.–(1) When, in any warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. (2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce
such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless. 6. Perusal of Section 244unequivocally indicates that, what is contemplated under the said section is warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report. The procedure is stated U/Sec. 245 when the accused shall be discharged. The order can be passed U/Sec. 245 if upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, if the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out, which if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. At the cost of repetition, it is to be stated that, in the instant case only relevant Section is 403 of the I. P. Code, where the maximum sentence provided is for two years. Therefore, the Magistrate has rightly tried the case as summons case. It was not open for the Magistrate to take recourse to the Section 244 or Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that no court proceeding can be trust worthy if based on forged public documents so order passed by Hon’ble A.C.J.M. (First) court on 12/06/2008 must be complied by D.M. /D.P.R.O. Mirzapur. According to apex court order ,plea of defendant must be ascertained before processing onward like examining witnesses etc. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of following attachment in PDF form showing how the date nomination of enquiry officer Mr. Vijay Shankar was manipulated from 31/05/2006 to 31/05/2007 in the letter of D.M. Mirzapur through which Vijay Shankar was nominated and enquiry report of Mr. Vijay Shankar. Whether in the name of section 244 of Cr.P.C. wrongdoings can be overlooked..pdf
5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Supreme Court of India
Subramanium Sethuraman vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 17 September, 2004
Author: S Hegde
Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B.Sinha, Tarun Chatterjee
           CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.)  1253 of 2002
PETITIONER:
Subramanium Sethuraman
RESPONDENT:
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/09/2004
BENCH:
N. Santosh Hegde, S.B.Sinha & Tarun Chatterjee
Therefore, in our opinion the High Court was correct in coming to the conclusion once the plea of the accused is recorded under Section 252 of the Code the procedure contemplated under Chapter XX has to be followed which is to take the trial to its logical conclusion. The copy of judgement is already submitted before the court with representation dated 06/03/2015.

 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

                Date-11/09/2015                                                           Yogi M. P. Singh

Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India .

[Quoted text hidden]


2 attachments
Submissions  submitted before A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur but copy was not received..pdf
744K
In the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IMG.docx
5418K

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

  1. Hon'ble Sir may be pleased to correct the error and instead of processing the case under section 244 of Cr.P.C. May be processed under chapter xx of Cr.P.C. .Otherwise it is sheer violation of Apex court Judgement.Author: S Hegde
    Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B.Sinha, Tarun Chatterjee
    CASE NO.:
    Appeal (crl.) 1253 of 2002

    PETITIONER:
    Subramanium Sethuraman

    RESPONDENT:
    State of Maharashtra & Anr.

    DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/09/2004

    BENCH:
    N. Santosh Hegde, S.B.Sinha & Tarun Chatterjee
    Therefore, in our opinion the High Court was correct in coming to the conclusion once the plea of the accused is recorded under Section 252 of the Code the procedure contemplated under Chapter XX has to be followed which is to take the trial to its logical conclusion. The copy of judgement is already submitted before the court with representation dated 06/03/2015.

  2. Hon'ble Sir no court proceeding can be trust worthy if based on forged public documents so order passed by Hon'ble A.C.J.M. (First) court on 12/06/2008 must be complied by D.M. /D.P.R.O. Mirzapur. According to apex court order ,plea of defendant must be ascertained before processing onward like examining witnesses etc. Hon'ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of following attachment in PDF form showing how the date nomination of enquiry officer Mr. Vijay Shankar was manipulated from 31/05/2006 to 31/05/2007 in the letter of D.M. Mirzapur through which Vijay Shankar was nominated and enquiry report of Mr. Vijay Shankar. Whether in the name of section 244 of Cr.P.C. wrongdoings can be overlooked..pdf

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: