Legal Question in Criminal Law in India

1. Plaintiff appealed in revenue S.D.O. office.
2. In that, Clerk gave next hearing date 20-3-12 to defendant that time plentiff was absent.
3. But when the defendant was present on given date 20-3-12, the clerk told him that, today is not your hearing day and your previous date absentee laid on roznama.
4. Defendant does not know about that previous date because clerk manipulated the dt 20-3-12 to 2-3-12, and it is very clear in roznama copy.
5. Clerk did this dishonestly, fraudulently in favour of plaintiff, because that day's hearing defendant could not be present.
6. Defendant brought the facts in the notice of S.D.O. then the S.D.O. told him whatever you have to say, you can speak on next hearing date. But next two hearing dates S.D.O. is busy in government work and the same is recorded in the Roznama.
7. hearing date
7a. Defendant again brought the facts in the notice of the S.D.O., and demanded to restore the case as it on the hearing date when the manipulation was happened.
7b. But the S.D.O. said all is well, and recorded the hearing in the Roznama "both parties' arguments are over, case is closed for judgement". Judgement date was not recorded in the Roznama (it is unlawful, can he do like that?). And told to defendant to sign on the Roznama.
7c. Defendant refuses to sign and said to S.D.O. my argument is not over. And ask when was the plaintiff complete his argument? I want the copy of plaintiff's arguments. S.D.O. rejected the demand. And make remark in Roznama that defendant refused to sign in Roznama.
Now, what evidence the defendant has?
Roznama copy of all the hearing date, which is clearly shows
a. the manipulation that I have already said.
b. plaintiff no.2's presentee and signature with date 17-2-12 above the same date line. That day the next hearing dt 20-3-12 was given to defendant which was manipulated later. That day all plaintiffs were absent.
c. Judgement date was not recorded in the Roznama. Because S.D.O.'s intention is defendant could not take judgement copy on time.
d. Remark of S.D.O. that defendant refused to sign in Roznama.
Now my questions are,
1. Is it I.P.C. 420 case along with I.P.C. Sections 119, 166, 167, 218.
2. Is there any CrPC section for this case?
3. Is the certified copy of Roznama, the sufficient evidence to prove the charges in this case?
4. Is F.I.R. lodge against S.D.O. or the S.D.O. staff.
5. what is the CrPC section to sieze the case file? so that no one can remove or change the evidences from the case file.
6. what will the defence of S.D.O.?
7. Please give advice on criminal aspect of this case.

Asked on 5/17/12, 8:05 am

2 Answers from Attorneys

Fca Prashant Chavan Expert Edge LLP

0 users found helpful

0 attorneys agreed

17.05.2012

Dear Sir / Madam,

It is precisely for this sluggish manner of functioning of the Courts in India, that more than 12,000 cases are pending disposal and judgement as on date; and the primary reason for people choosing to amicably resolve disputes amongst themselves, without knocking on the door of the Court.

Instead of getting into all these hassles, just opt for an out of Court settlement and resolve your dispute with the other party. Otherwise, all you will end up is continuously running after the Court, one hearing after another, only to realize that you end up worse off than before in the case, paying for engaging Advocates to represent you in the matter and pay their legal fees.

Regards,

Answered on 5/17/12, 9:24 am

Mark as helpful