Prosecution of sessions judge, hisar
Ajay Bansal
(Querist) 04 May 2012
This query is : Resolved
1. With an intention to remove corruption from Judiciary, I had made an application dt. 13.06.2011 before the Public Information Officer-cum-Superintendent o/o District & Sessions Judge, Hisar for getting few important information. The said application was sent to said P.I.O vide speed-post no. EH 014761741 N dt.13.06.2011, booked at General Post Office, Hisar.
2. Said speed-post, containing said application dt. 13.06.2011 under R.T.I. Act had been delivered to the office of said P.I.O-cum-Superintendent namely Ved Parkash on 16.06.2011. It is submitted that as per section 7[2] of R.T.I Act, 2005, if P.I.O fails to give decision on any application within 30 days of its receipt, then he/she shall be deemed to have refused the request of applicant's application. In other words, if any P.I.O does not give decision on any application under R.T.I Act within 30 days of its receipt, then said application is obviously rejected by said P.I.O. It is further submitted that once an application under R.T.I Act has been rejected by P.I.O in the light of aforesaid position, then he/she could not give any decision on that application without receiving any fresh application on same issues from the applicant. All aforesaid position of law was fully within knowledge of said Ved Parkash, P.I.O-cum-Superintendent o/o District & Sessions Judge, Hisar and V.K. Bakshi, District & Sessions Judge, Hisar.
3. As per aforesaid facts and circumstances if said Ved Parkash P.I.O did not decide said application dt. 13.06.1011 upto 15.07.2011, then he lost jurisdiction to decide the said application dt.13.06.2011 and the applicant [ My-Self ] got locus-standai to file First Appeal u/s 19 [1 ] R.T.I Act, 2005 before First Appellate Authority.
4. As said Ved Parkash [ P.I.O. ] had not decided my said application dt. 13-06-2011 upto 15-07-2011, so for getting information as per my said application dt. 13-06-2011, I filed an appeal dt. 28-07-2011 before First Appellate Authority i.e. District & Sessions Judge, Hisar. In the mean time, said Ved Parkash [ P.I.O. ] had made a decision on my said application dt. 13.06.2012 on 26-07-2011 and sent the same to me by a speed-post dt. 27-07-2011. In said decision dt. 26-07-2011, my said application dt. 13-06-2011 had been totally rejected by said P.I.O. However as said decision dt. 26-07-2-11 had been made by Ved Parkash [P.I.O.] in contravention with provisions of aforesaid section 7[2] of R.T.I Act, so said decision dt. 26-07-2011 was/is nothing but only a void and waste document, which can not be treated as disposal of my said application dt. 13-06-2011.
5. Due to filing of my said First Appeal V.K. Bakshi, Distt. & Sessions Judge, Hisar had deliberately went on leave for one month and Sh. L.N. Jindal, Add. District & Sessions Judge, Hisar had been made as officiating District & Sessions Judge for said one month, so that wrong decision could be made from the pen of Sh. Jindal. My said First Appeal dt. 28-07-2011 was decided by Sh. L.N. Jindal, officiating District & Sessions Judge, Hisar vide his order dt. 27-07-2011, without giving me any opportunity of hearing, but after giving full opportunity of hearing to said Ved Parkash[ P.I.O.]. In said appeal said Ved Parkash[ P.I.O. ] on advice of V.K. Bakshi, Regular cum-on-leave District & Sessions Judge, Hisar, had made fool of said Sh. L.N. Jindal by submitting a false and fabricating record regarding receipt of my application dt. 13-06-2011. As per this false record, made by said P.I.O Ved Parkash on the advice of said V.K. Bakshi, Distt. & Sessions Judge, Hisar, my said application dt. 13-06-2011 was received by said Ved Parkash on 28-06-2011 and not on 16-06-2011. After believing aforesaid falsity in question regarding receipt of my application dt. 13-06-2011 as truth, Sh. Jindal [ The Officiating District & Sessions Judge, Hisar ] rejected my said First Appeal vide order dt. 27-08-2011.
6. After the issuance of said order dt. 27-08-2011 by said Sh. Jindal, aforesaid V. K. Bakshi had resumed the charge of office of District & Sessions Judge, Hisar. Thereafter I had made a Second Appeal u/s 19[3] of R.T.I. Act against said order dt. 27-08-2011 of Sh. Jindal before the State Information Commission, Haryana Chandigarh. In my this Second Appeal, I had enclosed the aforesaid receipt of post-office dt. 13.06.2011[speed-post no. EH 014761741 N] as Annexture-A'. My said Second Appeal had been registered by said Commission under its registration no. 4705 of 2011. Both said Bakshi and said Ved Parkash had been directed by the said Commission to file their replies of said appeal. A joint false reply dt. 09-01-2012 was filed on behalf of said V. K. Bakshi, D.S.J., Hisar and Ved Parkash to illegally defeat my said Second Appeal. The said reply was signed by said Ved Parkash under total direction of said V. K. Bakshi.
7. In the said reply dt. 09-01-2012, filed on behalf of said Bakshi and said Ved Parkash, following false submissions were made before the State Information Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh .
" The appellant has wrongly alleged that he had sent said application to the P.I.O vide speed post dated 13.06.2011, whereas in fact the same was sent on 23.06.2011, as is evident from the entry made on the back of the envelope in which the application was received. Copy of the envelope is enclosed herewith for ready reference. The application was actually received on 28.06.2011 and the same was entered in the relevant receipt register at serial No. 16. No doubt, the postal receipt Annexture-A bears the date 13.06.2011 but the same either may be a clerical mistake or it may be pertaining to some other document allegedly shown to be posted to respondent No. 1 by appellant."
Alongwith aforesaid reply dt. 09/01.2012, a photocopy of the envelope, in which application in question dt. 13.06.2011 was sent by me, was also sent by aforesaid accused i.e. Bakshi and Ved Parkash before the aforesaid State Information Commission, Haryana. Said copy of envelope in question bears aforesaid speed-post No. i.e. EH 014761741 N, which is also present in my receipt of post-office dt.13.06.2011[speed-post no. EH 014761741 N ] . However in said copy of envelope, a writing of words/date ‘ 23.06.2011’ had been managed to be made by both said accused for making forgery in the original envelope, which was/is in custody of both said accused. As per both said accused, said words/date ‘ 23.06.2011’ were written by any official of concerned Post-Office at the time of booking of said envelope, in which application in question dt. 13.06.2011 was present, for sending the same to P.I.O o/o D.S.J. Hisar. As per both said accused as the said envelope was booked in the Post Office on 23.06.2011, so it was delivered on 28.06.2011 to P.I.O o/o D.S.J. Hisar.
8. However the aforesaid stand of said accused party regarding writing of words/date ‘23.06.2011’ on the envelope for showing the booking of said envelope at Post-Office on 23.06.2011 and delivery of same on 28.06.2011to P.I.O o/o D.S.J. Hisar is totally false, wrong and result of a shameful criminal conspiracy of forgery.
9. The State Information Commission, Haryana had decided aforesaid Second Appeal in my favour vide its order dt. 14.02.2012. In said order dt. 14.02.2012, I have been granted all most all major relief, sought in said Second Appeal, by said Commission in respect of obtaining information as per my said application dt. 13.06.2011. Thus indirectly, the said Commission rejected the plea of said accused party that application in question was booked on 23.06.2011 at Post-Office and delivered on 28.06.2011 to its addressee.
10. I have sought information from P.I.O of Post-Master, Hisar regarding date of booking of said envelope in question [speed-post no. EH 014761741 N ] at Post-Office, Hisar and date of delivery of said envelope[ mail] to P.I.O. o/o D.S.J. Hisar vide my R.T.I Application dt.02.02.2012. The P.I.O o/o Post-Master, Hisar has not sent reply of said application dt. 02.02.2012 within proper time of 30 days due to pressure of accused party, who came to know about said application dt. 02.02.2012. Thereafter I have filed an appeal dt. 29.03.2012 to the First Appellate Authority of R.T.I. Act of the office of Post-Master, Hisar. Due to this appeal dt. 29.03.2012, I have got two replies on my said application dt. 02.02.2012. As per these two replies of office of Post-Master, Hisar, the envelope in question [speed-post no. EH 014761741 N ], in which I had sent my application dt. 13.06.2011 to P.I.O. o/o D.S.J. Hisar, was booked at Post-Office on 13.06.2011 and same was delivered to its addressee on 16.06.2011.
11. Both aforesaid replies of Postal Department expose the crimes of aforesaid accused in respect of committing forgery on the envelope in question by managing of a false writing of word/date ’23.06.2011’ on that envelope and making false entry in record of P.I.O. o/o D.S.J. Hisar to the effect that application dt. 13.06.2011 had been received on 28.06.2011.
12. Due to committing of aforesaid crimes, both aforesaid accused now deserve to be booked and arrested and prosecuted u/s s 420,467,468,471 & 120-B IPC. I have sent a complaint dt. 23.04.2012 alongwith all concerned documents to the Superintendent of Police, Hisar for registration of a criminal case u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC.
13. Factually the office of present District & Sessions Judge, Hisar is not an office, where administrative works for providing justice to public are done, rather same is a Caucus of Goons, where every type of crimes are being committed by its members. One member of District Bar Association Hisar, namely P.K. Sandhir and his spouse namely Pankaj Sandhir [ A close relative of said Bakshi ] and another that Bar's member namely Subhash Godara are among important members of this Caucus. Said Subhash Godara have committed a very serious crime of cheating, forgery and impersonation on 18th January 2006 with the M.A.C.T Court of Hisar and the previous District & Sessions Judge, Hisar have ordered to conduct an enquiry u/s 340 Cr.P.C. in the year 2008. However the present corrupt Government of Haryana instead of taking any legal action against said Godara have appointed this ever-brief-less lawyer as Add. Advocate General of Haryana after coming into pressure of aforesaid Caucus.
14. Now the aforesaid District & Sessions Judge V. K. Bakshi is very near to retirement of his 29 years long service in Haryana's Judiciary. Several crimes, committed by this Bakshi in his said tenure of Judicial Service, with full proofs, are within the knowledge of present Haryana Government as well as Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. However instead of taking any legal action, Haryana Government is going to appoint said Bakshi as The President District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum after his retirement from Judiciary on the recommendations of aforesaid Caucus of Criminals.
15. Now I want to file a criminal complaint in the court of J.M.I.C. Hisar u/s 420,468 IPC etc against said Sessions Judge, etc. What are possibilities of success of said complaint.
Nadeem Qureshi
(Expert) 04 May 2012
Dear Sir
As per your information both the Accused/Judges committed a crime but as per the section 197 Crpc
197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.
(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-
(a) In the case of it person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) In the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government:
1[Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression "State Government" occurring therein, the expression "Central Government" were substituted.
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union whole acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of subsection (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, whenever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if lot the expression "Central Government" occurring therein, the expression "State Government were substituted.
2[(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued trader clause (I) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is here by declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991, receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon.]
(4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the court before which the trial is to be held.
1. Added by Act 43 of 1991, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 2-5-1991)
2. Ins. by Act 43 of 1991, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 2-5-1991)
STATE AMENDMENTS
Assam:
For sub-section (3) of section 197, the following subsection shall be submitted, namely.
"(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of' subsection (2) shall apply.
(a) To such class or category of the members of' the Forces charged with the maintenance of' public order, or
(b) To such class or category of other public servants [not being persons to whom the provisions of sub-section (1) or subsection (2) apply] charged with the maintenance of public order.
As may be specified in the notification wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply as if' for the expression Central Government occurring therein, the expression State Government were substituted."
[Vide President's Act 3 of 1980. (w.e.f. 5-6-1980)].
Maharashtra:
After section 197, the following section shall be inserted namely.
"197A. Prosecution of commissioner of Receiver appointed by civil court.- When any person who is a Commissioner or Receiver appointed by a court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is accused of any offence alleged to have committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his functions as Commissioner or Receiver, no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the court, which appointed such person as Commissioner or Receiver, as the case may, be."
as per my opinion the govt. will not be ready to give approval.
AMAR RANU
(Expert) 05 May 2012
PLACE AFORESAID FACTS BEFORE THE PUNJAB/HARYANA HIGH COURT SEEKING SANCTION TO PROSECUTE THE SESSION JUDGE, FAILING WHICH A WRIT IS THE ONLY REMEDY.
Anirudh
(Expert) 05 May 2012
Thank GOD nobody has so far replied to Mr. Bansal in his own way of replies to the queries i.e. Refer A.I.R. Manuals.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 06 May 2012
You could have gone in second appeal.
No criminal action can be initiated.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
