Suresh Pal Singh vs State of Uttaranchal and Another

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—By way of this criminal miscellaneous application, the challenge is to the prosecution launched against the applicant Suresh Pal Singh by registering a criminal case No. 2742 of 2003, State v. Suresh Pal Singh u/s 467/468/471 Indian Penal Code. It has been prayed that the proceedings of the said criminal case, founded on the chargesheet dated 11.11.2003, may be quashed.

Having heard the learned Counsel of the Petitioner as well as learned brief holder, it appears that the Petitioner Suresh Pal Singh is a Junior Engineer of the Irrigation Department of the Government of Uttarakhand and was posted for construction of Tunnel at Pithoragarh. Due to various irregularities committed by the Petitioner, an FIR No. 17/2003 was lodged against him on 21.9.2003 in P.S. Cantt, Dehradun, which bore the crime No. 119/18-2003. The investigation was made and the chargesheet No. 15/2003 was submitted on 11.11.2003 against him for the offence of Sections 467/468/471 Indian Penal Code. He challenged the submission of the chargesheet as well as the order of the learned Magistrate asking him to stand for trial and got the further proceedings stayed on dated 20.10.2005 by this Court.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the State and thereafter the Petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit.

Having heard the learned Counsel of the Petitioner and learned brief holder for the State, the attention of this Court was drawn to a letter written by the Petitioner to Chief Engineer/Head of Department, Irrigation entailing the corruption in the department to the tune of Rs. 15.00 lacs. In the said letter, Petitioner has requested the Chief Engineer that a fair enquiry of the said corruption should be conducted by Sri Sagar Chandra, Chief Engineer along with Sri A.K. Rathi, Superintendent Engineer and Sri S.M. Saxena, another Superintendent Engineer. It has been contended that this letter developed the vengeance in the mind of Sri Ashok Kumar Rathi, so he implicated the Petitioner and lodged the FIR against him. It has also been contended on behalf of the Petitioner that on dated 1.11.2003, Sri Ashok Kumar Rathi, Superintendent Engineer himself has recommended for staying the transfer of Petitioner at Dehradun, who was asked to join his duties further at the remote hill of District Pithoragarh. Both the contentions advanced by learned Counsel of the Petitioner do not hold water for the reason that writing a recommendatory letter by Sri Rathi cannot be a sole basis for engrossing all his misdeeds, which were divulged at some later period of time.

So far as the letter dated 12.9.2003 written by the Petitioner Suresh Pal Singh to the Chief Engineer is concerned, it is not against Sri A.K. Rathi, Superintending Engineer. Rather, a request has been made by the Petitioner to entrust the enquiry to some of the Engineers including Sri A.K. Rathi as a member of that Committee of enquiry. This way, the contention of vengeance, as raised on behalf of the applicant, looses its base.

After lodging of the FIR, the statements of Sri A.K. Rohtagi, Executive Engineer as well as of Sri A.K. Rathi, Superintendent Engineer (as he then was) have been recorded, besides few other witnesses which indicate that the Petitioner Suresh Pal Singh has manipulated so many entries wrongly and excessively in the measurement book which were in his possession showing the work done at the spot.

Learned brief holder has drawn the attention of this Court that Sri Ashok Kumar Rathi, Superintending Engineer in his statement to the Investigating Officer u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure has disclosed the real conduct of the applicant which is highly objectionable on the part of a government servant besides his attitude of insubordination making it a public show of staggering a Dharna against his superior officers. The attention of this Court has further been drawn that this Petitioner has a long criminal history which has been revealed in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by Sri A.S. Rawat, S.H.O., P.S. Cantt, Dehradun. The criminal history of the Petitioner is as under: -

S. No.

Case Crime No.

Under Section

1.

93/96

420/467/468/447/511 Indian Penal Code

2.

147/2000

420/463/464 Indian Penal Code

3.

500/2000

420/467/468/471/504/506 Indian Penal Code

4.

720/2002

420/467/468/469/471/506 Indian Penal Code

5.

2/2003

420/406 Indian Penal Code

6.

8/95

342/332/353/323/504/506 Indian Penal Code

7.

83/2000

323/504/506 Indian Penal Code

It has been contended on behalf of the Petitioner that out of so many cases, as shown in the list, in most of them, the Petitioner has been acquitted. This contention also does not bear any force, because there is no proof put forth to this Court that most of the cases have ended in acquittal. The Petitioner had an opportunity which he availed by filing the rejoinder affidavit to show that most of the cases have ended in acquittal against him. All the cases are of very serious nature and in case of "Chheda v. State, reported in 1986 ACR. 71", it was opined that

if a person being involved in a large number of cases escapes conviction on account of technicalities and niceties of law, it would not mean that the man has a clean state. It is also to be noted that on account of delay in trial, so many things happen on account of which accused are at times acquitted. Therefore, mere acquittal cannot be a sound yardstick to enunciate the principle that unless and until a person has not been convicted, it cannot be said that the man does not have a criminal history".

Needless to say that nothing has been filed on the record along with the rejoinder affidavit to reveal that the Petitioner has been absolved from the offences stated hereinabove.

It has also been contended on behalf of the Petitioner that by the order of Division Bench of this Court, his termination from the service has been revoked. This Court has taken a glance to Annexure 2 filed with the rejoinder affidavit which is the copy of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. It shows that Petitioner''s termination was revoked on the ground that the copy of chargesheet was not served upon him, so the Court having served a copy of chargesheet upon him, has directed for holding a fresh enquiry keeping the Petitioner under suspension from the service. This way, the judgment of the Division Bench is of no help to him.

It has further been contended on behalf of the Petitioner that since he is facing the administrative enquiry, he cannot be put to trial on the basis of chargesheet, almost for the similar charges. This contention is also unacceptable for the reason that the administrative enquiry against a government servant can run parallel to the trial based upon the chargesheet. The former can lead to the disciplinary action in the nature of administrative one against the government servant, while the criminal trial based upon a chargesheet will attribute a punitive action against a person concerned, as envisaged by the different sections of Indian Penal Code. There is no bar to run the administrative action as well as the criminal trial at the same time.

Learned Counsel of the Petitioner has also indicated by reading the statements of the various witnesses recorded by the I.O. that no offence of Sections 467/468/471 Indian Penal Code is prima faciely made out against the applicant. This argument is also unsubstantial to be considered in this petition for the reason that it is an established principle of law that while adjudicating the petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court need not to adopt a scrupulous analytical approach towards the statements recorded by the I.O., but to see prima faciely whether a grave injustice would occur if the chargesheet is permitted to be sustained against the Petitioner. Having a look upon the statements recorded by the I.O. which were of a number of responsible officers, up to the rank of Superintendent Engineer, it is enough to manifest that prima faciely there is an evidence against the Petitioner to implicate him for the offences, as indicated in the chargesheet.

In view of the above, this petition is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. Petition is dismissed. Stay order dated 20.10.2005 passed by this Court is vacated. Inform the lower court accordingly.