Mockery of Cr.P.C. and violation of Apex court judgement by subordinate lower judiciary itself.

Grievance Status

Print || Logout
Status as on 10 Sep 2015

Registration Number : DEPOJ/E/2015/01361
Name Of Complainant : Yogi M P Singh
Date of Receipt : 10 Sep 2015
Received by : Department of Justice
Officer name : Shri Atul Kaushik
Officer Designation : Joint Secretary,
Contact Address : Jaisalmer House,
Mansingh Road,
New Delhi110011
Contact Number : 23385020
Grievance Description : Hon.ble Sir- 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.

Whether this is not travesty of justice system. Whether canon of law allows it.

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh

AttachmentsAug 29 (12 days ago)

to supremecourtpmosburgent-action, bcc: hgovup, bcc: cmup, bcc: csup
Persecution by the court of A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur of your applicant is sheer illegal and unconstitutional .
29 August 2015
Whether it is justified that on the each fixed date , Judge may overlook the case of your applicant in the morning session and hear when entire business of court may be over. Consequently your applicant has to spend entire day in the premises of the court. As a formality in order to request of your applicant , call is made by the court attendant repeatedly but matter is taken up when no business of court remains. Whether such arbitrary act of A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur is not violating the human rights of your applicant.
                                      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 first Mirzapur i.e. {A.C.J.M. (First)} Court District-Mirzapur . State-Uttar Pradesh, India .
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
Prayer-Plea of your applicant dated Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:58 AM which was sent to D.J./A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur on 07/03/2015 by your applicant by duly signing each page of application along with annexures may not be overlooked by A.C.J.M. Mirzapur on flimsy ground.
Prayer of aforesaid application is as follows –
Whether a summon case can be processed under section 244 of Cr.P.C. And
plea of defendant can be overlooked by taking the recourse of aforesaid
section under which warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police
report are processed. Please take a glance of attached scanned copy of aforesaid application.
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 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.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that when the case was listed on 25/06/2015 for argument ,learned counsel for plaintiff had returned back a day before from the fixed date from his pilgrimage so because of illness couldn’t attend the proceedings of the court. Again when the case was listed on 10/07/2015 , new A.C.J.M.  First O.M. Beer Singh took the charge at the place of Rana. On this very day ,Mirzapur bar association was on strike on flimsy ground and your applicant opposed this strike call and prayed the new judge to hear the argument and at last he assured to hear the case at 2 PM. Counsel for the plaintiff denied to argue in the case as he remained the president of bar association Mirzapur so his moral duty was to support the illegal demad of his fellows. After all new A.C.J.M. Heard the arguements of your applicant and ordered the case be listed on 21/08/2015 and final chance was provided to learned counsel for paintiff. On 21/08/2015 ,two times call was made in the morning session but no one responded from his side and illness was submitted by his junior on behalf of plaintiff but at 2:30 PM as usual ,he came to argue in the case.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that he argued  that
1-on my application 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 so 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;
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
Court Fees Yet another aspect of ‘access to justice’ is the system of demanding ‘courtfee’ from the parties who move the Courts. Lord Macaulay, who headed the Law Commission one hundred and fifty years ago declared that the preamble to the Bengal Regulation of 1795 was ‘absurd’ when it stated that high court fee was intended to drive away vexatious litigants. The reason he gave was that such increase will also drive away honest plaintiffs who are unable to pay court fee. Starting from the 14th Report, the Law Commission has been repeating that the argument that court fee be increased to prevent vexatious litigation, cannot be accepted. In the Supreme Court, in P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty v. State of Karnataka 1989 Supp (1) SCC 696, Venkatachaliah J (as he then was), while dealing with the issue as to whether the fixation of ad valorem Court fees without any limit, as proposed by legislation in the Rajasthan and Karnataka Acts, was constitutionally valid, quoted A.P. Herbert’s ‘More Uncommon Law’, where the following words of the Judge in the fictional case of Hogby v. Hogby were referred to: “That if the Crown must charge for justice, at least the fee should be like the fee for postage: that is to say, it should be the same, however long the journey may be. For it is no fault of one litigant that his plea 35 to the King’s Judges raises questions more difficult to determine than another’s and will require a longer hearing in Court. He is asking for justice, not renting house property.” The Judge in the fictional case asked the Attorney General: “Everybody pays for the police, but some people use them more than others. Nobody complains. You don’t have to pay a special fee every time you have a burglary, or ask a policeman the way.” Venkatachaliah J observed that the court fee as a limitation on ‘access to justice is inextricably intertwined with a ‘highly emotional and even evocative subject stimulative of visions of a social order in which justice will be brought within the reach of all citizens of all ranks in society, both those blessed with affluence and those depressed with poverty’. Thus, while upholding the constitutionality of the said legislations, the Court suggested for the rationalization of the levy of Court fee by the States and more particularly lower the fees for litigants at lower level, on the principle that those who have less in life should have more in law. His Lordship, further observed: 36 “Indeed all civilized governments recognize the need for access to justice being free.”
5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that on 24/08/2015 ,your applicant was again physically and mentally tortured by the A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur by confining to court room for seven hours continually in the name of writing order in the case. Here this question arises that why your applicant is being targeted unnecessarily and tyrannically? Hon’ble Sir next date fixed for hearing in the case is 11/09/2015 and your applicant has been ordered to submit fresh application along with the court stamps by pursuing the aforementioned view points of learned counsel for plaintiff.
6-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Criminal Penal Code 
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. This implies that plea can be sent through post to the courts.
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 comments on Mockery of Cr.P.C. and violation of Apex court judgement by subordinate lower judiciary itself.

  1. 5-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that on 24/08/2015 ,your applicant was again physically and mentally tortured by the A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur by confining to court room for seven hours continually in the name of writing order in the case. Here this question arises that why your applicant is being targeted unnecessarily and tyrannically? Hon'ble Sir next date fixed for hearing in the case is 11/09/2015 and your applicant has been ordered to submit fresh application along with the court stamps by pursuing the aforementioned view points of learned counsel for plaintiff.

  2. Undoubtedly the dignity of courts are going down but concerned are shielding the wrongdoers in the name of independence of judiciary. Whether it is justified that act for maintaining the integrity of courts is being used to shield the wrongdoers. How is it feasible for our accountable public functionaries to close their eyes from the wrongdoings of wrongdoers.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: