Charan Singh vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

The petitioner Charan Singh, the relative of accused Surjit Singh involved in FIR No. 191 dated 25.12.1996 Police Station Dharamkot, District Ferozepur prays for handling of investigation of the said FIR case to some other officer under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to meet the ends of justice. The respondents in this case are State of Punjab through Secretary Home Department, Punjab Chandigarh and S.S.P. Ferozepur.

The contention of the petitioner in short is that he is related to one Surjit Singh and are permanent resident of Village Pipli, Tehsil Shahkot, Distt. Jalandhar. On 25.12.1996, SHO along with other police personnel at about 4.00 P.M. came in Gypsy car and took the accused with them. Surjit Singh aforesaid was irrigating his fields at that time and the house of petitioner is situated in the said fields. Surjit Singh was tortured and harassed at the hands of the police. Nothing was recovered from the accused when taken in custody and later on the recovery was planted to him. A letter was sent from the jail by the accused stating that actually recovery was effected from one Shri Tahal Singh resident of Village Rewara, P.S. Dharamkot. It was alleged that the police had taken Rs. 15,000/ from Taha1 Singh as a price for releasing him in this case despite recovery made from him and false recovery was planted on the accused. Reference has been made to an enquiry conducted by some DSP who had found the accused to be innocent and the SHO at fault. It was urged that in this case fair investigation was not conducted.

The respondents upon service of notice put in appearance through Mr. S.S. Randhawa, DAG, Punjab and filed written statement in the shape of affidavit of Deputy Supdt. of Splice (Sub Division) Zira contending, inter alia, that on 25.12.1996 a police party headed by Inspector Kewal Singh was going towards village Sherpur Tiabian and when they reached in the area of village Sherpur Tiabian the accused was seen coming from the opposite direction. He was carrying a gunny bag on his shoulder. He was apprehended on suspicion and the gunny bag was searched and it was found to contain 38 Kg Poppy Husk and committed an offence under Section 15/61/85 NDPS Act. Consequently, FIR No. 191 dated 25.12.1996 was registered at Police Station Dharamkot against the accused. Copy of the FIR was annexed as Annexure R1. It was contended that the case was duly investigated and on completion of investigation a challan was put up in the Court on 19.3.1997. The case is pending trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Allegation of the payment of Rs. 15,000/ by Tahal Singh for releasing him have been specifically denied. It was urged that the accused was rightly challaned. It was also denied that any enquiry was conducted by DSP, Zira in which the accused was found to be innocent. Referring to the resolution passed by the members of Panchayat, it was contended that the same had no effect in the eyes of law.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel for the respondents and carefully perused the record of the case.

The main ground for seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is that the police after accepting an illegal gratification of Rs. 15,000/ from one Tahal Singh from whom recovery of 38 Kg. Poppy Husk was made let him off and falsely implicated Surjit Singh, a relative of the petitioner Charan Singh in this case by falsely planting 38 Kg. of Poppy Husk. The other ground is that a Dy.S.P. conducted some enquiry into this case and found accused Surjit Singh innocent and the SHO of the concerned Police Station at fault. A perusal of the reply filed by the Dy. S.P. Zira will categorically go to show that the conduct of an enquiry by Dy.S.P. Zira in which accused Surjit Sigh was found innocent has been categorically denied. Along with written statement filed by Dy.S.P., Annexure R2/T dated 21.6.1997 has been annexed which is a communication from the Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur regarding verification of application No. 7PC. DC, dated 14.2.1997 from Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Surjit Singh resident of Pipli wherein it was reported as under :

"During the enquiry it has come to light that when SHO P.S. Dharamkot Inspector Kewal Singh including Police personnel were going to BUNDH of the river for patrolling, they saw Surjit Singh coming in front of the Party; they caught hold of Surjit Singh and on his search 38 K.G. Chura Post recovered from him and registered a case vide F.I.R. No. 191 dated 25.12.1996 under Section 15/16/85 N.D.P.S. Act in Police Station Dharamkot and this Poppy husk was recovered in the presence of Shri Nachittar Singh D.S.P. Zira. No police party went to the house of Surjit Singh and nor he was arrested from his home. During enquiry allegations levelled in the application have not been proved. Applications have only been submitted just to put pressure on the Police. There is no truth in the applications and there is no need for any action on these applications. It is recommended that the applications may be filed."

It appears that another complaint was made by Balbir Singh son of Bishan Singh resident of Pipli which was investigated by Harminder Singh, Dy.S.P., (H), Ferozepur who submitted his report to S.S.P., Ferozepur, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure R3/T. Para 2 of this report, result of the enquiry, may be reproduced for the sake of proper appreciation of the matter which reads as under :

"From my enquiry it has been found that S.H.O., P.S. Dharamkot Inspector Kewal Singh including other Police personnel was going with the Police party on the bank of the river on 25.12.1996 for patrolling recovered Chura Post from Surjit Singh son of Balbir Singh resident of Pipli and got case registered vide F.I.R No. 191/96 under Section 15/61/85 N.D.P.S. Act P.S. Dharamkot. Police party never went to the house of Surjit Singh nor he was arrested by the police from his home. Allegations levelled in the application have not been proved. D.S.P. Zira has also conducted the enquiry about this application. No action is to be taken on this application. It is recommended that the application may be filed. Report is submitted please."

The enquiry report, referred to above, clearly negatives the averment made in this petition by Charan Singh. There is no cogent proof of the averment of the petitioner that any other enquiry was conducted by Dy.S.P., Zira wherein Surjit Singh was found innocent. The allegations of the poppy husk being recovered from one Tahal Singh who was let off by the police after accepting Rs. 15,000/ from him are not corroborated or supported by any reliable evidence and are just allegations which cannot be given due weightage.

Learned counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association Chandigarh through its Secretary v. State of Punjab and Ors., 994(1) RCR 205 wherein the case related to abduction of murder of an advocate and his family which shocked lawyers community who agitated the same and went on strike. Police after completing investigation had submitted a charge sheet in the Court but the lawyers were not satisfied with the police investigation and filed a writ petition. High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition and appeal by special leave was filed before the Apex Court. In the peculiar circumstances of that case Hon''ble the Supreme Court directed that fresh investigation be conducted by C.B.I. to instil confidence in public mind. The facts of the case of Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association (supra) are entirely different from the facts of the instant case. Here the Police during patrolling apprehended Surjit Singh and recovered from him 38 Kg. of Poppy husk, case was duly investigated and after completion of investigation a challan was filed. A perusal of the enquiry report referred to above, will go to show that the wife of Surjit Singh and one resident of Pipli namely Balbir Singh picked up the matter with the police, it was duly investigated and the allegations made in the complaint were not found to be true. The case is pending trial before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. This petition has not been filed by the wife of the accused Surjit Singh who had earlier filed a complaint before the S.S.P. regarding investigation. The other authority relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is reported in State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, 1997(3) RCR 567 wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court considered the case that where the police had put up a challan after completion of the investigation before a Magistrate who took cognizance. It was held that police had statutory power to further investigate into offence and submit a report to the Magistrate upon involvement of other persons in the offence. The scope of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was considered by the Apex Court and it was dealt with as under :

"Though under the old Code there was no express provision like subsection (8) of Section 173 of the Code statutorily empowering the police to further investigate into an offence in respect of which a chargesheet has already been filed and cognizance taken under Section 190(1)(b), such a power was recognised by this Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State, AIR 1979 SC 1791. In exemplifying the situations which may prevail upon the police to take up further investigation and the procedure the Court may have to follow on receipt of the supplemental report of such investigation, this court observed :

"It is easy to visualise a case where fresh material may come to light which would implicate persons not previously accused or absolve persons already accused. When it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person already accused of an offence has a good alibi is it not the duty of that agency to investigate the genuineness of the plea of alibi and submit a report to the Magistrate ? After all the investigating agency has greater resources at its command than a private individual. Similarly, where the involvement of persons who are not already accused comes to the notice of the investigating agency, the investigating agency cannot keep quiet and refuse to investigate the fresh information. It is their duty to investigate and submit a report to the Magistrate upon the involvement of the other persons. In either case, it is for the Magistrate to decide upon his future course of action depending upon the stage at which the case is before him. If he has already taken cognizance of the offence, but has not proceeded with the enquiry of trial, he may direct the issue of process to persons freshly discovered to be involved and deal with all the accused in a single enquiry or trial. If the case of which he has previously taken cognizance has already proceeded to some extent, he may take fresh cognizance of the offence disclosed against the newly involved accused and proceed with the case as a separate case. What action a Magistrate is to take in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in such situations is a matter best left to the discretion of the Magistrate."

This authority has also no application to the facts of this case. Here the police has not further investigated the case and arrested some other accused and produced him before the Magistrate. Apart from it, the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition for seeking the prayer of further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The petitioner is neither an accused nor in any way connected with this case. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition lacks merit and is dismissed.