# Sangam Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 370
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-06-27
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 3963 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sangam-lal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48770
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-Section
173,
190,
190(1)(b),

204,
482
-
Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 -Section 3/7: -
Application
-
validity
of
Cognizance/
summoning order and for quashing entire
criminal proceeding under EC Act, - trial
court materially erred in summoning the
applicant on printed proforma by filling up
the gaps/blanks - judicial orders cannot
be allowed to be passed in a mechanical
manner, without application of judicial
mind and without satisfying himself as to
which offence were prima-facie being
made out -Magistrate failed to exercise
the jurisdiction vested in him resulting
miscarriage
of
justice
-
Application
allowed - impugned summoning order is
quashed - matter is remitted back to
proceed a fresh as per law. (Para - 14, 18,
25, 26, 27)

Application (U/s 482) is allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prosecution is not bound to call each and
every
witness
of
an
occurrence
irrespective of the consideration whether
such witness is essential to the unfolding
of the narrative on which the prosecution
case is based. The prosecution has
examined all material witnesses. PW 17
Shri Banarsi Das Gupta is the injured
witness. PW 18 and PW 19 had caught hold
of the appellant at the spot and handed him
over to the police. PW 20 had deposed
about the motive. The non-examination of
Mool Chand Jain or P.D. Makharia,
therefore does not in any way affect the
correctness of the prosecution case."

(emphasis supplied)

18. Therefore, once the prosecution
has chosen to close its evidence after
producing the witnesses whom they wanted
to produce, it is none of the right of the
accused to seek their recall on the ground
that prosecution ought to have produced
them in order to prove its case.

19. On the basis of foregoing
discussions, this Court is of the considered
view that the impugned order does not
suffer from any illegality or irregularity.
The instant application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit which is,
accordingly, dismissed.

20. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the concerned learned trial court by the
Office for information, forthwith.
----------
(2022)06ILR A370
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 3963 of 2022

Sangam Lal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Neelu Singh Chauhan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-Section
173,
190,
190(1)(b),

204,
482
-
Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 -Section 3/7: -
Application
-
validity
of
Cognizance/
summoning order and for quashing entire
criminal proceeding under EC Act, - trial
court materially erred in summoning the
applicant on printed proforma by filling up
the gaps/blanks - judicial orders cannot
be allowed to be passed in a mechanical
manner, without application of judicial
mind and without satisfying himself as to
which offence were prima-facie being
made out -Magistrate failed to exercise
the jurisdiction vested in him resulting
miscarriage
of
justice
-
Application
allowed - impugned summoning order is
quashed - matter is remitted back to
proceed a fresh as per law. (Para - 14, 18,
25, 26, 27)

Application (U/s 482) is allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Dilwar Vs St. of Har. (2018 vol. 16 SCC 521),

2. Menka Gandhi Vs U.OI.. & ors. (AIR 1978 SC
597),

3. Hussainara Khatoon (I) Vs St. of Bihar (1980
vol. 1 SCC 81),

4. Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs R S Nayak (1992
Vol. 1 SCC 225),

5. P. Ramchandra Rao Vs St. of Karn. (2002 Vol.
4 SCC 578),
6 All. Sangam Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
371
6. H. N. Rishbud Vs St. of Delhi (AIR 1955 SC
196),

7. Bhushan Kumar & anr. Vs St. of Delhi (AIR
2012 SC 1747),

8. Basauddin & ors. Vs St. of UP & ors. (2011 (I)
JIC 335 (All) (LB),

9. Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs C.B.I. (AIR 2015 SC
923),

10. Darshan Singh Ram Kishan Vs St. of
Maharashtra (197 vol. 2 SCC 654),

11. Ankit Vs St. of UP & anr. (Application (U/s
482) No. 19647/2009 decided on 15.10.2009.

12. Kavi Ahmad Vs St. of UP & anr. (Criminal
Revision No. 3209/2010 73 ACC 559)

13. Abdul Rasheed & ors. Vs St. of UP & anr.
(2010 vol. 3 JIC 761 (All).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Neelu Singh Chauhan,
learned counsel for the applicant as well as
Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for
the State and perused the record.

2. The instant application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants
with a prayer to quash the entire criminal
proceedings of Case No. 15605/2021: State
Vs. Sangam Lal, arising out of Case Crime
No. 227/2020, under Section 3/7 E.C. Act,
Police Station Mileriya, District Raebareli,
pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-I, Raebareli
as well as to quash the charge sheet no.01
dated 08.06.2021 by which the learned court
below has taken the cognizance against the
applicant and to quash the summoning order
dated 12.08.2021 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-I, Raebareli.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant is a licensee of
fair price shop at Village-Taj pur Amrawa,
Police Station Mileriya, Tehsil, Sadar,
District Raibareli and on 19.06.2020 the
opposite party no.3- Supply Inspector,
Mahrajganj, District Raebareli made a spot
inspection of the shop of the applicant and
without counting the bags of wheat and
rice, he made a forged report before the
opposite
party
no.5-Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Sadar,
District
Raebareli
against the applicant only on the basis of
oral statements of the card holders because
the applicant could not fulfill the illegal
demands of the Supply Inspector.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the Regional Supply
Inspector, Sadar Raebareli submitted its
inquiry report on 19.06.2020 before the
District Supply Officer and the District
Supply Officer without approval of the
District Officer suspended the licence of
the applicant's fair price shop.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that after suspending the
licence of the applicant's fair price shop,
the Supply Inspector lodged the F.I.R.
against the applicant on 24.06.2020 at
Police Station Mileriya, District Raebareli
under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities
Act, 1955, which was registered as Case
Crime No. 0227/2020.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the opposite party no.3
submitted
the
charge
sheet
dated
08.06.2021 against the applicant before the
learned court below and in pursuance of the
charge-sheet the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance
on 12.08.2021 without application of mind
and summoned the applicant, while no case
is made out against the applicant and the
cognizance was taken on the printed
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proforma by filling the sections of IPC,
dates and number and in the said proforma
the learned Magistrate without assigning
any reason has summoned the applicants
for facing trial. Copy of the cognizance
order is also annexed as Annexure No.A1
to the affidavit.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants
further submits that the entire prosecution
story is false. No such incident took place
and the applicants have been falsely
implicated in the present case.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants
further submits that by the order dated
12.08.2021 cognizance taken by the learned
Magistrate on printed proforma without
assigning any reason is abuse of process of
law and the same was without application
of mind and was in a routine manner.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants
further submits that after submission of
charge sheet and cognizance order on
printed proforma, the applicants have been
summoned mechanically by order dated
12.08.2021 and the court below while
summoning the applicants has materially
erred and did not follow the dictum of law
as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in various cases that summoning in
criminal case is a serious matter and the
court below without dwelling into material
and visualizing the case on the touch stone
of probability should not summon accused
person to face criminal trial. It is further
submitted that the court below has not
taken into consideration the material placed
before the trial court along with charge
sheet and, therefore, the trial court has
materially
erred
in
summoning
the
applicant. The court below has summoned
the applicant through a printed order, which
is wholly illegal.

10. It is vehemently urged by learned
counsel for the applicant that the impugned
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
12.08.2021 is not sustainable in the eye of
law, as the same has been passed in
mechanical manner without applying the
judicial mind, because on the face of record
itself
it
is
apparent
that
impugned
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
12.08.2021 has been passed by the
Magistrate concerned on printed proforma
by filling up the gaps, therefore the same is
liable to be quashed by this Court.

11. Learned counsel for the applicants
has given much emphasis that if the
cognizance has been taken on the printed
proforma, the same is not sustainable.

12. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the
State
submitted
that
considering
the
material evidences and allegations against
the applicants on record, as on date, as per
prosecution case, the cognizable offence
against the applicants is made out,
therefore, application is liable to be
dismissed but has not denied that the leaned
Magistrate has taken cognizance on the
printed proforma. Accordingly, this case is
being finally decided at this stage without
issuing notice to opposite party no.2 and
without calling for a counter affidavit.

13. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

14. The main issue for consideration
before this Court is that whether the learned
Magistrate may summon the accused
person on a printed proforma without
assigning any reason and take cognizance
on police report filed under Sections 173 of
Cr.P.C. In this regard, it is relevant to
mention here that a Court can take
cognizance of an offence only when
6 All. Sangam Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
373
condition
requisite
for
initiation
of
proceedings before it as set out in Chapter
XIV of the Code are fulfilled. Otherwise,
the Court does not obtain jurisdiction to try
the offences under section 190 (1) of the
Cr.P.C. provided that "subject to the
provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate
of the first class, and any Magistrate of the
second class specially empowered in this
behalf under sub-section (2), may take
cognizance of any offence-

(a) upon receiving a complaint of
facts which constitute such offence,

(b) upon a police report of such
facts;

(c) upon information received
from any person other than a police officer,
or upon his own knowledge, that such
offence has been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate
may empower any Magistrate of the second
class to take cognizance under sub-section
(1) of such offences as are within his
competence to inquire into or try."

15. At this juncture, it is fruitful to
have a look so far as the law pertaining to
summoning of the accused persons, by
taking cognizance on a police report filed
under section 173 of the Cr.P.C., is
concerned and the perusal of the case law
mentioned herein below would clearly
reveal that cognizance of an offence on
complaint is taken for the purpose of
issuing process to the accused. Since, it is a
process of taking judicial notice of certain
facts which constitute an offence, there has
to be application of mind as to whether the
material collected by the Investigating
Officer results in sufficient grounds to
proceed further and would constitute
violation of law so as to call a person to
appear before the criminal court to face
trial. This discretion puts a responsibility
on the magistrate concerned to act
judiciously keeping in view the facts of the
particular case as well as the law on the
subject and the orders of Magistrate does
not suffers from non-application of judicial
mind while taking cognizance of the
offence.

16. Fair and proper investigation is
the primary duty of the Investigating
Officer. No investigating agency can take
unduly
long
time
in
completing
investigation. There is implicit right under
Article 21 for speedy trial which in turn
encompasses speedy investigation, inquiry,
appeal, revision and retrial. There is clear
need
for
time
line
in
completing
investigation for having in-house oversight
mechanism wherein accountability for
adhering to lay down timeline, can be fixed
at different levels in the hierarchy, vide
Dilawar vs. State of Haryana, (2018) 16
SCC 521, Menka Gandhi vs. Union of
India, AIR 1978 SC 597, Hussainara
Khatoon (I) vs. State of Bihar, (1980)1
SCC 81, Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S.
Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 and P.
Ramchandra Rao vs. State of Karnatka,
(2002) 4 SCC 578.

17. For the purposes of investigation,
offences are divided into two categories
"cognizable" and "non-cognizable". When
information of a cognizable offence is
received or such commission is suspected,
the proper police officer has the authority
to enter in the investigation of the same but
where the information relates to a noncognizable offence, he shall not investigate
it without the order of the competent
Magistrate. Investigation includes all the
proceedings under the Cr.P.C. for the
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
collection of evidence conducted by a
police officer or by any person other than a
Magistrate (who is authorised by a
Magistrate in his behalf). Investigation
consists of steps, namely (i) proceeding to
spot, (ii) ascertainment of the facts and
circumstances of the case, (iii) discovery
and arrest of the suspected offender, (iv)
collection of evidence relating to the
commission of the offence and (v)
formation of opinion as to whether on the
material collected therein to place the
accused before a Magistrate for trial and if
so to take necessary steps for the same by
filing a charge sheet under Section 173,
Cr.P.C., vide H.N. Rishbud vs. State of
Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196. Thereafter, the
learned Magistrate has to take cognizance
after application of judicial mind and by
reasoned order and not in mechanical
manner.

18. In the case of Bhushan Kumar
and Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
Anr., AIR 2012 SC 1747, the Hon'ble
Apex Court was pleased to observe that
section 204 of the Code does not mandate
the Magistrate to explicitly state the
reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly
states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is
sufficient ground for proceedIn the case of
Basaruddin & others Vs. State of U.P.
and others, 2011 (1) JIC 335 (All)(LB),
the Hon'ble Court was pleased to observed
as under:-

"From a perusal of the impugned
order, it appears that the learned Magistrate
on the complaint filed by the complainant
has summoned the accused in a mechanical
way filling the date in the typed proforma.
Learned
Magistrate
while
taking
cognizance of the offence on complaint
was expected to go through the allegations
made in the complaint and to satisfy
himself as to which offences were prima
facies, being made out against the accused
on basis of allegations made in the
complaint. It appears that the learned
Magistrate did not bother to go through the
allegations made in the complaint and
ascertain as to what offences were, prima
facie, being made out against the accused
on the basis of allegations made in the
complaint. Apparently, the impugned order
passed by the learned Magistrate suffers
from non-application of mind while taking
cognizance of the offence. The impugned
order is not well reasoned order, therefore,
the same is liable to be quashed and the
petition deserves to be allowed and the
matter may be remanded back to the
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Lakhimpur Kheri with direction to him to
go through the allegations made in the
complaint and ascertain as to what offences
against the accused were prima facie being
made out against the accused on the basis
of allegations made in the complaint and
pass fresh order, thereafter, he will proceed
according to law."

19. In the case of Bhushan Kumar
and Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
Anr., AIR 2012 SC 1747, the Hon'ble
Apex Court was pleased to observe that
section 204 of the Code does not mandate
the Magistrate to explicitly state the
reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly
states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is
sufficient ground for proceeding, then the
summons may be issued. This section
mandates the Magistrate to form an opinion
as to whether there exists a sufficient
ground for summons to be issued but it is
nowhere mentioned in the section that the
explicit narration of the same is mandatory,
meaning thereby that it is not a pre-
6 All. Sangam Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
375
requisite for deciding the validity of the
summons issued.

20. In the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal
v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR
2015 SC 923, the Hon,ble Apex Court was
pleased to observe in paragraph no.47 of
the judgment as under:

"47.
However,
the
words
"sufficient
grounds
for
proceeding"
appearing in the Section are of immense
importance. It is these words which amply
suggest that an opinion is to be formed only
after due application of mind that there is
sufficient basis for proceeding against the
said accused and formation of such an
opinion is to be stated in the order itself.."

21. In the case of Darshan Singh
Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra ,
(1971) 2 SCC 654, the Hon'ble Court was
pleased to observe that the process of
taking cognizance does not involve any
formal action, but it occurs as soon as the
Magistrate
applies
his
mind
to
the
allegations and, thereafter, takes judicial
notice of the offence. As provided by
Section 190 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,
a
Magistrate
may
take
cognizance of an offence either, (a) upon
receiving a complaint, or (b) upon a police
report, or (c) upon information received
from a person other than a police officer or
even
upon his
own
information
or
suspicion that such an offence has been
committed. As has often been held, taking
cognizance does not involve any formal
action or indeed action of any kind but
occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his
mind to the suspected commission of an
offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place
at a point when a Magistrate first takes
judicial notice of an offence. This is the
position whether the Magistrate takes
cognizance of an offence on a complaint, or
on a police report, or upon information of a
person
other
than
a
police
officer.
Therefore,
when
a
Magistrate
takes
cognizance of an offence upon a police
report, prima facie he does so of the
offence or offences disclosed in such
report."

22. In the case of Ankit Vs. State of
U.P. And another passed in Application
U/S 482 No.19647 of 2009 decided on
15.10.2009, this Court was pleased to
observe in paragraph No.8 of the judgment
as under:-

"8. In the beginning, the name of
the court, case number, state vs. ....... under
section ......... P.S. ......... District ......... case
crime No. ........ /2009 also have been
printed and blanks have been filled up by
mentioning the case number, name of the
accused, section, P.S. District etc. by some
employee. Below afore cited printed
matter, the following sentence has been
mentioned in handwriting "अवभयुि अांवकत
की विरफ्त री म 0 उच्च न्य य यि द्व र Crl.
Writ No. 19559/08 अांवकत िि म र ज्य में
प ररत आदेश वदि ांक 5.11.08 द्व र आरोप पत्र
प्र प् होिे तक स्थवित थी।"

23. Below aforesaid sentence, the seal
of the court containing name of Sri Talevar
Singh, the then Judicial Magistrate-III, has
been affixed and the learned magistrate has
put his short signature (initial) over his name.
The manner in which the impugned order has
been prepared shows that the learned
magistrate did not at all apply his judicial
mind at the time of passing this order and
after the blanks were filled up by some
employee of the court, he has put his initial
on the seal of the court. This method of
passing judicial order is wholly illegal. If for
the shake of argument, it is assumed that the
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
blanks on the printed proforma were filled up
in the handwriting of learned magistrate, even
then the impugned order would be illegal and
invalid, because order of taking cognizance
of any other judicial order cannot be passed
by filling up blanks on the printed proforma.
Although as held by this Court in the case of
Megh Nath Guptas & Anr V State of U.P.
And Anr, 2008 (62) ACC 826, in which
reference has been made to the cases of
Deputy Chief Controller Import and
Export Vs Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4)
ACC 686 (SC), UP Pollution Control
Board Vs Mohan Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC
159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC 1456 and Kanti
Bhadra Vs State of West Bengal, 2000 (1)
JIC 751 (SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), the
Magistrate is not required to pass detailed
reasoned order at the time of taking
cognizance on the charge sheet, but it does
not mean that order of taking cognizance can
be passed by filling up the blanks on printed
proforma. At the time of passing any judicial
order including the order taking cognizance
on the charge sheet, the Court is required to
apply judicial mind and even the order of
taking cognizance cannot be passed in
mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned
order is liable to be quashed and the matter
has to be sent back to the Court below for
passing fresh order on the charge sheet after
applying judicial mind."

24. In the case of Kavi Ahmad Vs.
State of U.P. and another passed in
Criminal Revision No. 3209 of 2010,
wherein order taking cognizance of offence
by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(b)
on printed proforma without applying his
judicial mind towards the material collected
by the Investigating Officer has been held
illegal.

25. In the case of Abdul Rasheed
and others Vs. State of U.P. and another
2010 (3) JIC 761 (All). The relevant
observations and findings recorded in the
said case are quoted below:-

"6. Whenever any police report or
complaint is filed before the Magistrate, he
has to apply his mind to the facts stated in
the report or complaint before taking
cognizance. If after applying his mind to
the facts of the case, the Magistrate comes
to the conclusion that there is sufficient
material to proceed with the matter, he may
take cognizance. In the present case, the
summoning order has been passed by
affixing a ready made seal of the
summoning order on a plain paper and the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had
merely entered the next date fixed in the
case in the blank portion of the ready made
order. Apparently the learned Magistrate
had not applied his mind to the facts of the
case before passing the order dated
20.12.2018, therefore, the impugned order
cannot be upheld.

7. Judicial orders cannot be
allowed to be passed in a mechanical
manner either by filling in blank on a
printed proforma or by affixing a ready
made seal etc. of the order on a plain paper.
Such tendency must be deprecated and
cannot be allowed to perpetuate. This
reflects not only lack of application of mind
to the facts of the case but is also against
the settled judicial norms. Therefore, this
practice must be stopped forthwith."

26. In view of the above, this Court
finds and observes that the conduct of the
judicial officers concerned in passing
orders on printed proforma by filling up the
blanks without application of judicial mind
is objectionable and deserves to be
deprecated. The summoning of an accused
in a criminal case is a serious matter and
6 All. Khurshidurehman S. Rehman Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
377
the order must reflect that Magistrate had
applied his mind to the facts as well as law
applicable thereto, whereas the impugned
summoning
order
was
passed
in
mechanical manner without application of
judicial mind and without satisfying
himself as to which offence were primafacie being made out against the applicants
on the basis of the allegations made by the
complainant. the impugned cognizance
order passed by the learned Magistrate is
against the settled judicial norms.

27. In light of the judgments referred
to above, it is explicitly clear that the order
dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Raebareli is
cryptic and does not stand the test of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Consequently, the cognizance/summoning
order dated 12.08.2021 cannot be legally
sustained, as the Magistrate failed to
exercise the jurisdiction vested in him
resulting in miscarriage of justice.

28. Accordingly, the present Criminal
Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C succeeds
and
is
allowed.
The
impugned
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
12.08.2021 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-I, Raebareli in Case No.
15605/2021: State Vs. Sangam Lal, arising
out of Case Crime No. 227/2020, under
Section 3/7 E.C. Act, Police Station
Mileriya, District Raebareli is hereby
quashed.

29. The matter is remitted back to
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I,
Raebareli directing him to decide afresh the
issue for taking cognizance and summoning
the applicant and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law keeping in view the
observations made by this Court as well as
the direction contained in the judgments
referred to above within a period of two
months from the date of production of a
copy of this order.

30. The party shall file certified copy
or computer generated copy of such order
downloaded from the official website of
High Court Allahabad or certified copy
issued from the Registry of the High Court,
Allahabad.

31. The concerned Court/ Authority/
Official shall verify the authenticity of such
computerized copy of the order from the
official website of High Court Allahabad
and shall make a declaration of such
verification in writing.
----------
(2022)06ILR A377
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 723 of 2022 (CIVIL)

Khurshidurehman S. Rehman ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jai Prakash Prasad

Counsel for the Respondent:
G,A., Sri Manish Goyal (Addl. A.G.), Sri A.K.
Sand

Civil Law - Constitution of India, Article
227 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -
Section 156 (3) - Parliamentary Election -
non-fulfilling
of
Election
Manifesto/
promises
-
does
not
comes
under
'cognizable
Offence'
or
under
comes
within ambit of any law - thus cannot
enforced under any legislation - Trial