State of Punjab vs Jasbir Singh Cheema

S.D. Bajaj J.

In the complaint lodged by him against Inspector Jasbir Singh Cheema under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for fabrication of evidence against Saradara Singh accused in case FIR No. 88 dated November 9, 1981 of Police Station, Mohali in Ropar District of Punjab State, Shri H.R. Kaushik then Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar stated, "As Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate I have tried and disposed of a police challan arising out of FIR No 88 dated 9111981 under section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act of Police Station Mohali, State Versus Sardara Singh son of Dayal Singh on 4.10.1982. In my judgment I have observed that the evidence hasbeen fabricated. On the first day when accused Sardara Singh was arrested and produced for remand, this Court vide order dated 9111981 observed that on the recovery memo signature of Shiv Parshad witness have been obtained but the place mentioned for the signatures of Gurdev Singh was still blank; although his name had been written. It was also observed by me that on the personal search memo only signature of Shiv Parshad witness have been obtained and not the second witness. Even one column had been made.

After the presentation of the challan on 3031982 at the trial I noticed that on the personal search memo Ex. PF an addition has been made by adding a column indicating Gurdev Singh son of Gurdit Singh of village Raipur Khurd, signatures of Gurdev Singh have also been obtained. Thus Inspector Jasbir Singh, Investigating Officer has fabricated false evidence and has thus committed an offence under section 193[PC.

The decided file of this Court in State Versus Sardara Singh is forwarded herewith.

I am a public servant and cannot attend the Court on every date of hearing. My personal appearance may kindly be exempted. As provided under Section 343 Criminal Procedure Code, it may kindly be treated as a case instituted on police report. A.P.P. attached with your Court may kindly be asked to conduct the case.

I have been delegated with powers to try the case summarily but according to High Court Rules and JUDGMENTs a summary trial cannot be held against a Government official, as such this Court has submitted the case for trial. A list of witnesses is enclosed herewith. The accused is on bail. He has been directed to appear before you on 10111982.

On being charged with the commission of the offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, accused pleaded ''not guilty'' thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated September 6, 1984, learned trial court acquitted the accused. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the State of Punjab filed Crl. Appeal No 106 DBA of 1985 in this Court.

We have heard Shri S.K. Sharma, DAG Punjab for the State, nemo for the respondent inspite of due service and pursued the record very carefully.

In the course of his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, accused Jasbir Singh Cheema stated. It is correct that I was working as Inspector during that period. I had put my signature because I was investigating Officer in the case. It is also correct that the Judge had recorded the statements of the witnesses in the court but the signatures of Gurdev Singh on the recovery memo and memo regarding personal search are that of Gurdev Singh and his signatures could not be secured, so I had secured his signatures, I had no had intention because this case was registered at the given by Gurdev Singh and he had a liquor vend at Sohana. After the registration of this case, I had arrested the Karinda of Sh. Gurdev Singh from me liquor vend while selling liquor on dry day. A case was made against him. Gurdev Singh had asked me to release his Karinda but I had not relied him. Due to this reason Gurdev Singh filed a complaint against me. I have no knowledge about the remaining." It remained unsigned as per chance and that I had received the signatures later on. I had no instructions either verbal or in writing in this regard. The version brought on record by the accused has been supported out and out by Sh. Shiv Parshad, DW 2, the other witness of the recovery memo besides Gurdev Singh who states,"About three years ago, Shri Jasbir Singh Cheema Inspector had arrested Sardara Singh I and Shri Gurdev Singh witness was also with him. Sardara Singh accused was arrested from his house, at village Mataur. Shri Jasbir Singh Cheema had prepared all the papers at the spot. I had put my signatures on the same. Gurdev Singh was also accompanying at that time." Shri Rattan Lal Anand, DW 1, partner of Gurdev Singh and Banta Singh, in the liquor vend functioning under the name and style of Messrs R. L. Anand and Company at Sohana states, "In the year 198081. I had a liquor vend at Sohana under the name R.L. Anand and Company. There were three shareholders in it. Besides me, there were Gurdev Singh and S. Banta Singh. Gurdev Singh was resident of Qila Raipur. In the year 198182, Jasbir Singh Cheema was posted as Inspector. Shri Jasbir Singh Cheema had arrested my Karinda, namely, Sh. Balwant Singh while selling liquor on dry day. I came to know about it after three days. The entire management of the liquor vend was run by Gurdev Singh."

Adverting to this aspect of the matter learned trial court observed, appears that Jasbir Singh obtained the signature of Gurdev Singh on the search memo later on just to complete the investigation and without any malafide intention. Had there been any malafide intention on the part of the accused to fabricate false evidence, he could have obtained the signatures of Gurdev Singh on the recovery memo also. The presence of Gurdev Singh has been established by the other witness Shri Shiv Parshad."

While deciding the matter at trial learned trial court was expected to act on the evidence placed before it uninfluenced by the opinion expressed by Shri H R Kaushik, complainant, under Section 340 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Mens rea being completely absent, the commission and emission attributed to the accused could ''not be termed intentional, In this view of the matter, the finding of'' not guilty returned by the learned trial court qua the respondent is affirmed.

In result, the appeal filed by the State of Punjab against the acquittal of accused Jasbir Singh Cheema is rendered wholly without Merit,and is consequently dismissed.