Major Singh, Inspector, SHO vs Puran Chand

A. S. Nehra, J.

This appeal under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is directed against the judgment, dated 27.7.1983, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the appellant was held guilty of contempt under the said Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ or, in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months'' simple imprisonment.

Puran Chand respondent, father of Ashwani Kumar alias Pinki filed a petition against Inspector Major Singhappellant, Station House Officer of Police Station, Division No. 1, Jullundur City, for punishing him under the Contempt of Courts Act. It is alleged in the petition that his son Ashwani Kumar alias Pink was working in Ahuja Labour industries, Industrial Area, Jullundur City which is owned by Shri K.S. Ahuja, that his son suffered an injury on his hand, which rendered him incapable of doing any service and, for that purpose, he was thrown out of his employment by Shri K.S. Ahuja; that he claimed compensation from the owner of the factory; that Shri K.S. Ahuja threatened him that a false case would be registered against him for stealing of rubber straps which were being manufactured in his factory; that, apprehending his arrest, Ashwani Kumar alias Pinki moved the Sessions Judge, Jullundur, on 1321982, for grant of anticipatory bail and he was allowed adinterim anticipatory bail by Shri M.S. Luna, Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur, on 15.2.1982; that a notice was issued to Inspector Major Singh appellant for 20.2.1982, on which date the appellant did not appear in the Court, and that on the request of the State Counsel, the case was adjourned to 2421982 and the interim bail continued up to that date. It is further alleged in the petition that on 22.2.1982, Ashwani Kumar alias Pinki was arrested by the appellant despite the knowledge of the order of the anticipatory bail and despite the fact that he was informed by the respondent as well as by Ashwani Kumar that anticipatory bail had been granted. Ashwani Kumar, it is alleged, waskept in illegal custody and was mercilessly beaten by the appellant. It is further alleged in the petition that the respondent sent telegrams on the same day to Hon''ble the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as the Chief Minister of Punjab and the Inspector General of Police, regarding the illegal detention; that the respondent also moved the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur, on 23.2.1982 for contempt of the order of the Court, on which notice of contempt was issued to the appellant for 24.2.1982; that, on that date, the appellant never appeared in the Court; that, on 25.2.1982, the appellant released Ashwani Kumar and, immediately on his release, the respondent got his son examined from the Civil Hospital, Jullundur City and, according to the doctor, five injuries were found on the person of Ashwani Kumar. It was further stated in the (sic) Jullundur, dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Ashwani Kumar on 27.2.1982 and also dismissed the application, for contempt, on 131982 and that Ashwani Kumar moved an application (Criminal Misc. No. 1004M of 1982) for grant of anticipatory ball in the High Court, which was allowed on 1831982.

The appellant filed reply and denied the allegations made in the petition. He stated in paragraph 3 of his written statement that no notice of the application for grant of anticipatory bail was ever issued to him and on the intimation given to him, he sent a report to the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur, that S.I. Om Parkash, Investigating Officer, was away to Amritsar. The appellant further stated that, on the report submitted by him, the Additional Sessions Judge adjourned the case to 2721982.

The appellant has submitted in paragraph 6 of the written statement that Ashwani Kumar alias Pinki was called on 2521982 by S.I. Om Parkash and he made a disclosure statement on 2521982 before S.I. Om Parkash and thereafter he was allowed to go from the police station. Puran Chandrespondent filed a replication by way of affidavit and denied the averment of the appellant made in paragraph 3 of the written statement. The respondent submitted in paragraph 3 of the replication that the appellant had full knowledge of the order of interim bail as the same was sent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The order passed by the Additional Sessions on 1521982, reads as under :

"Issue notice of this application to the State for 2021932. In the meantime, the petitioners are admitted to adinterim anticipatory bail. They are ordered to be released in the event of their arrest by the police on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 5000/ with one surety in the like amount each. Petitioners are further directed to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating officer.

The respondent has further stated in the replication that a copy of the aforequoted order was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Division No. 1, for favour of information and necessary action, on 2021982 the State Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant and requested for adjournment, because he had not received his comments; that the case was adjourned to 2421982 but, in the meanwhile, Aswani Kumar was arrested on 2221982; that on 2321982, a contempt petition was moved against the appellant in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, in which, notice was issued for 221982; and that, on that date, the appellant despite notice, deliberately did not appear before the Court and the following order was passed :

"Ld. A.P.P. has stated that copy of the application was sent to the S.H.O. P.S. Divn. No. 1, Jullundur, for his comments. Instead of sending comments, a report has been made by the M.H.C., Divn. No. 1, only to the effect that the file of this case was with the Investigating Officer who is away to Amritsar. The contempt application is supported by an affidavit and since the S.H.O. has not come forward to furnish his explanation, prima facie, it appears that he has committed contempt of the court and let the proceedings be initiated against him for taking appropriate action in the matter. Let the evidence in support of the application be produced on 27.2.1982."

The respondent has further stated that the appellant had the knowledge of Interim bail and also of the contempt petition pending before the Additional Sessions Judge but in spite of this, he did not forward any comments to the Court till 131982.

The averments made in paragraph 6 of the written statement were denied by the respondent in the replication and it was averred that the facts, as mentioned in the corresponding paragraph of the petition, are reiterated.

At this stage, it may be noted that the averment of the appellant in paragraph 6 of the written statement that Ashwani Kumar alias Pinki, son of the respondent was called in the police station on 252.1982 by SubInspector Om Parkash and he made a disclosure statement, is totally false, because the appellant filed an affidavit before the Additional Sessions Judge that he had joined Aswani Kumar alias Pinki in the investigation on 2521982. On the basis of the affidavit filed by the appellant, the contempt proceedings were filed. The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur, on 131982, reads as under :

"Shri Major Singh Inspector has filed affidavit to this effect that he has simply joined the petitioner in the investigation on 25.2.1982. According to him the petitioner was neither detained nor beaten. In the circumstances, I do not consider it expedient to proceed further. The application is, therefore, filed."

Puran Chand respondent, father of Ashwani Kumar alias Pinki, has examined Sewa Singh PW1, President of Nagar Sudhar Sabha; Ashwani Kumar PW2 son of Girdhari Lal, and Ashwani Kumar PW3 son of Puran Chand respondent. These witnesses have supported the allegations made in the petition. They have no animus against the appellants. They have categorically stated that the order regarding grant of ad interim anticipatory bail to Ashwani Kumar by the Additional Sessions Judge was conveyed to the appellant but he did not care for the Court''s order and arrested Ashwani Kumar alias Pinki on 2221982 and tortured him and kept him in illegal custody up to 25.2.1982.

The appellant also examined evidence in defence. Gian Chand RW1 has deposed that he knew Ashwani Kumar son of Puran Chand respondent; that Ashwani Kumar told him that he had been called by the police and he should accompany him to the police station; that he accompanied him to the police station along with Romesh Kumar and Head Constable Karam Chand and produced him before S.I. Om Parkash; that Ashwani Kumar confessed his guilt and prayed for mercy, that his statement as recorded by S.I. Om Parkash, which was attested by Bahadur Singh RW, and that Ashwani Kumar was not arrested. However, in the cross examination, witness has admitted that he neither knew the name of the brother of Ashwani Kumar nor did he know how many brothers he has got and even did not know that address of his house; and that he did not know where Ashwani Kumar works. He admitted that he generally went to the police station to sign papers there. No reliance can be placed on the testimony of this witness. He seems to be a madeup witness and under the influence of the police. Otherwise, he had no business to go to the police station generally and sign papers there. He has not stated as to what type of papers he used to sign. Bahadur Singh PW2 is another witness produced by the appellant, who also supported the version of the appellant. This witness also seemed to be a madeup witness as he has admitted in his crossexamination :

"I occasionally go to the police station in connection with some work. Sometimes I go there many times a day. I go to the police station whenever some disputes occur between parties I might have been prosecuted in one or two criminal cases. I was involved in many land disputes. Kartar Singh Ahuja is of my brotherhood."

He has admitted that Kartar Singh Ahuja was present outside the Court on that day. Kartar Singh Ahuja, who appeared as RW3, has supported the version of the appellant. He seems to be an interested witness as Ashwani Kumar PW3 was employed in his factory, during the course of which employment, his thumb of the hand was chopped off and his services were terminated. In his crossexamination, he admitted that the Electricity officials raided his factory many times in connection with theft of electricity. No reliance can be placed on such a person. S.I. Om Parkash RW4, who was working under the appellant, has neither denied nor accepted the receipt of the notice regarding the anticipatory bail granted to Ashwani Kumar by the Additional Sessions Judge. Constable Ravi Nandan, working under the appellant, appeared as RW5. He brought Roznamcha pertaining to his police station from 2221982 to 2521982, from the Police Station, Division No. 1. He deposed that on 2221982 the appellant went to attend the meeting of the Senior Superintendent of Police at 10.30 a.m. and came back at 2.45 p.m.; that at 5,00 p.m. he left for general patrolling and returned to the police station at 9.30 p.m.; that on 2321982 at 9.30 p.m. he went to supervise the security arrangements in connection with the IndoPak Match held at the Guru Gobind Singh Stadium; that on 2521982 he left the police station at 9.30 a.m. for the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police and came back at 6.05 p.m.; and that he immediately left for patrolling and returned to the polite station at 10.15 p.m. He further stated that the investigation of FIR No. 24 of 1982 was entrusted to S.I. Om Parkash. He admitted that it is not recorded in the Roznamcha that Ashwani Kumar appeared before S.I. Om Parkash on 2521982. He also deposed that Ashwani Kumar was produced by Gian Chand and Romesh Kumar before S.I. Om Parkash, but he does not say on which date he was arrested. In his crossexamination this witness has admitted that there is no entry on a full page preceding the entry regarding Inspector Major Singh''s departure on 22.2.1982 and that, even on the prior page, the date is written. He also admits that Major Singh''s name is cut and the name of Om Parkash is written after the entry of departure of Major Singh and "business" has been written against his name. He further admits that, according to the entry of 2521982. Inspector Major Singh remained on duty for 12 hours and that, before the entry regarding departure of Inspector Major Singh, there is one full page left blank; on which no entry has been made. He also showed his ignorance regarding the receipt of the notice from the Court in the police station. The appellant also appeared as his own witness (RW6). He admitted in his crossexamination that as Station House Officer he is responsible for all the acts done by the police officers under him and the responsibility of the notices received from the Courts is his and that the Court communications are regarded as important documents. He also deposed that he did not remember if the Public Prosecutor had informed him about the anticipatory bail to Ashwani Kumar, on 20.2.1982.

After perusal of the aforesaid evidence produced by the parties, the learned Single Judge held that the order of anticipatory bail was communicated to the appellant and, inspite of the order granting the bail, Ashwani Kumar was arrested by the appellant on 2221982 and was tortured and that the appellant released Ashwani Kumar on 2521982 when he received the notice of contempt from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge.

Ashwani Kumar alias Pinki was granted anticipatory bail on 15.2.1982 and notice of the application was given to the State for 2021982 On 20.2.1982, the State counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant and requested for adjournment, stating that he has not received the comments of the appellant, and the case was adjourned to 2421982. On 2321982 a contempt petition was filed against the appellant and notice was issued for 24.2.1982. The appellant, despite notice, deliberately did not appear before the Additional Sessions Judge. The appellant did not send his, comments and a report was made by the Moharrir Head Constable to the effect that the file of the case was with the Investigating Officer who was, away to Amritsar and the contempt petition was adjourned to 2721982 appellant filed an affidavit before the Additional Sessions Judge, stating that he has simply joined Ashwani Kumar alias Pinki in the investigation on 2521982, and in view of the averments made in the affidavit, the contempt proceedings were filed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

No reliance can be placed on the witnesses produced by the appellant as they have falsely deposed in his favour. Not only that, the appellant has made false averments in paragraph 6 of his written statement, stating that Ashwani Kumar alias Pinki was called for interrogation on 2521982 by S.I. Om Parkash. The appellant has also connected the evidence and produced false witnesses in the Court, which is a very serious matter. It is highly improbable that a person, after obtaining anticipatory bail from the Court, will not inform the police officer about it. Admittedly, Ashwani Kumar was working as a worker in the factory of K.S. Ahuja RW3 where, during his employment, his thumb of the hand was chopped off & a case was registered against him on 2521982, i.e., after the grant of anticipatory bail to him by the Court, in the police station, of which the appellant was the incharge and the first information (informant) in the case was K.S. Ahuja RW3. Since K.S. Ahuja RW3 did not like to pay compensation to Ashwani Kumar, he got the case registered against him and the appellant connived with K.S. Ahuja RW3. Thus, we are of the considered view that the order of anticipatory bail was communicated to the appellant by Ashwani Kumar alias Pinki in the presence of PWs Sewa Singh and Ashwani Kumar son of Girdhari Lal. Thus, we hold that, inspite of the anticipatory bail granted to Ashwani Kumar pw3, the appellant arrested him, tortured him and ultimately released him on 2521982.

In view of the abovementioned discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.