Gurpreet Singh alias Shammi and Others vs State of W.B.

Debiprasad Sengupta, J.—This is an application for quashing of a proceeding in Sessions Case No. 15/91 pending in the Court of Id. Judge, 11 th Bench, City Sessions Court, at Calcutta.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner engaged themselves in a Criminal Conspiracy to commit decoity, murder, looting and to create a state of terrorism in the State of Punjab and other States in India. With that end in view the petitioners entered into a Criminal Conspiracy to assassinate Lt. Col. K.S. Brar, G.O.C., incharge of Eastern Command who was the officer in Command during Operation Blue Star in Punjab in 1984 and also to murder Sri S.S. Roy of Beltala Road, Calcutta, Ex-Governor of Punjab. It was alleged that the petitioner chalked out various plans for execution of their conspiracy into action. On the basis of such allegations Hastings P.S. Case No. 311 dated 21-11-90 was registered under Sections 120B/121/121A/122/109/147/148/149/302/379/395/396/397, I.P.C.

On completion of investigation a chargesheet was submitted by the police under Sections 120B/302, IPC before the Id. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. On the basis of such chargesheet the Id. Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the accused petitioners by his order dated 9-2-91. The case was committed to the Court of Session. At the time of framing of charge it was submitted by the Id. Special P.P. before the learned trial Judge that there are sufficient materials against the accused persons to show that they had committed offences under Sections 120B/121/121A/122, IPC and accordingly charges under the said sections should be framed. The Id. P.P. also submitted before the Court requisite sanction order u/s 196, Cr. P.C. for prosecution of offence under Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code. The Id. Judge, however, was of the View that charges under Sections 121/124A/122, IPC could not be framed because cognizance of offence was taken by the Id. Magistrate without any sanction order as required u/s 196(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the Id. Judge was of the view that there are sufficient incriminating materials, the statements of witnesses, the judicial confession of the accused Gurpreet Singh recorded u/s 164, Cr. P.C. and other circumstances to establish the fact that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to assassinate Lt. General K.S. Brar, G.O.C. in-charge, Eastern Command, stationed at Calcutta and Sri S.S. Roy, Ex-Governor of Punjab during the relevant period. Since no sanction order is required for the purpose of taking cognizance of the offence of criminal conspiracy u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the Id. Judge framed charge u/s 120B, I.P.C. against the accused persons. Since offence of criminal conspiracy is a distinct offence punishable separately from the main offence, the Id. Judge framed charge u/s 120B against the five (5) accused persons. It is at this stage the petitioners came up before this Court for quashing of charge as also of the proceeding as aforesaid.

Mr. Sekhar Basu, the Id. Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the Id. Judge at the time of framing of charge is required to appreciate the materials on record and the documents submitted along with the police report in a realistic manner bearing in mind the probabilities of the case and the normal course of human conduct and the Id. Judge is not expected to act mechanically on the basis of the police report. Mr. Bose further submits that the statements u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. of prosecution witnesses which were submitted along with the police report u/s 173 of the Code, even if taken to be true and taken in their entirety do not establish the essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy, namely, entering into an agreement to commit the murder of Lt. General Brar or Mr. S.S. Roy. Mr. S. Bose further submits that at the time of framing of charge the Id. Judge relied upon a confessional statement made by the present petitioner No. 1 without considering the fact that recording of such confessional statement and the voluntariness thereof suffered from serious infirmities. The next submission made by Mr. Bose is that the T.I. Parade in the present case is perverse and bad in the eye of law because of the reason that such T.I. Parade was held in the Court premises wherein there is always a change of presence of police personnel disclosing the identity of the petitioners to the witnesses and further one of the witnesses who identified the petitioner No. 1 in the T.I. Parade was Captain H.S. Grewal, to whom the petitioner No. 1 was earlier shown at Fort William.

I have heard the Id. Advocates of the respective parties, I have perused the impugned order of framing of charge and I have also gone through the relevant papers/ documents which are supplied by the Id. Advocate of the petitioners. In my considered view the impugned order passed by the Id. Judge framing of charge u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code does not suffer from any illegality. The confessional statement of the petitioner No. 1 recorded u/s 164, Cr. P.C. implicating himself and other petitioners is sufficient to frame charge against the petitioners. Whether such statement was made voluntarily or not will be decided in course of the trial of the case. In such a case the prosecution should be given opportunities to prove its case by adducing evidence during trial. In my considered view it will not be proper for this Court to quash the proceeding at this stage. The present application accordingly fails and the Rule is discharged. Since this is a very old case of 1991 I direct the Id. trial Judge to proceed with the trial and to conclude the same with utmost expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.