Mool Chand Singh Rana vs State of Rajasthan

K.C. Sharma, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner through this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has prayed for quashing the adverse remarks recorded by the learned trial court in its judgment dated 31.5.2004.

At the conclusion of trial in Sessions Case No. 169/2002 State of Rajasthan Vs. Mooran Mal, the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 31.5.2004 while acquitting the accused of the charge u/s 435 IPC and Section 3(2)(iii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, recorded adverse remarks against the present petitioner who had carried out investigation in the case. The adverse remarks translated into english are reproduced below :

The petitioner did not investigate the matter properly because investigation is the foundation of a criminal case upon which the house of trial of a criminal case is to be constructed. It is the prime duty of the investigating officer to apprehend the real offender and to collect all relevant and material evidence so that accused could be punished. The petitioner being an investigating officer has not investigated the matter in a proper manner and did not record the statements of material witness Manju. The Investigating Officer further stated that he did not know whether he found the foot steps or shoe steps or naked steps of any person on the place of incident etc.

Having recorded the aforesaid remarks, the trial court has ordered that under the provisions of Rule 66 of the General Rules (Criminal), 1980, a copy of the judgment be sent to the Director General of Police for appropriate action against the petitioner.

On 29.10.2001, complainant Balu Ram lodged a report alleging therein that 25 days prior to this incident, accused Pooranmal; took away Rs.22030/- from his house, lying in his pocket. After a meeting of Panchayat was convened, the accused returned the aforesaid sum. As a consequence of complaint the accused felt annoyed and resultantly on 29.10.2001 the accused burnt the grass lying in the house and because of fire the entire house hold articles lying in the house were burnt. It was further alleged that accused poured kerosene and lit fire, thereby causing damage of Rs.7,000/- etc. to the complainant. The matter was investigated into and a charge sheet was filed against the accused.

It appears that there was no eye witness of the incident. In the cross examination of petitioner M.S.Rana, Investigating Officer it came to the light that Smt. Manju W/o Balu Ram was not at all present at the time and place of incident. That being so, the petitioner did not record his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. It may be stated that Smt. Manju was not named as a witness to the incident in the report lodged by her husband. However, investigation was handed over to some other officer who recorded the statement of Manju under Sec. 161 Cr. P.C. When Mst. Manju was not an eye witness of the incident, the petitioner, in the course of investigation did not record her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and in my view, right so. However, with the change of investigation by some other investigating officer, her statement was recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. and charge sheet was filed and her name figured in the list of witnesses annexed there with. She was examined in the court. At the conclusion of trial the trial court discarded the testimony of Mst. Manju and acquitted the accused, giving him benefit of doubt. The fact that her testimony was rejected by the trial court, in itself is sufficient to show that she was not a witness to the incident.

Be that as it may, admittedly, the trial court before passing adverse remarks against the petitioner did not afford him an opportunity of being heard. It is a cardinal principle of law that whenever any adverse remarks are passed against a person, whether he is a party to the proceeding or not, he must have given an opportunity to put his side and to meet the same. The principle of natural justice requires that person against whom adverse remarks are being given, he must be heard. In my view, the trial court was not at all justified in recording remarks against the petitioner at random behind the back of the petitioner when neither there was any such material available on record which could have compelled the trial court to record the adverse remarks nor the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing such remarks. Thus the trial court has violated this cardinal principle of natural justice.

For the reasons aforesaid, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The adverse remarks passed against the petitioner in the judgment dated 31.5.2004 delivered by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sikar in Special Case No. 169/2002 State Vs. Pooranmal, are expunged.