AFZAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) F.I.Rs. were registered with Government Railway Police, Faridabad by the Station House Officer, Ambala Cantonment, Randhir Singh (ASI) against the prime accused, Rahim Khan for offences of fraud and forgery of the railway receipts and cheating and misappropriation. In connection therewith, a police team headed by Ishmad, Inspector, C.I.A.G.R.P., Ambala had gone to Agra to apprehend Rahim Khan. When he alluded the investigation team, they took away two minor boys viz., Afzal son of Rahim Khan and Habib son of Ahmad and kept them in wrongful confinement at different places. Consequently, above writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution were filed in this Court for habeas corpus of the minor boys. This Court issued rule nisi on October 29, 1993 to Ms. Indu Malhotra, Standing Counsel for State of Haryana and directed the matter to be listed on November 1, 1993. On November 1, 1993, this Court directed the Home Secretary, Government of Haryana to personally examine the complaint of illegal detention of two minor boys and to submit a report by November 5, 1993 and the matter was directed to be posted on that day at 2.00 p.m. On November 2, 1993, when Ms. Indu had pointed out the Court that the Home Secretary was on leave, this Court had modified the order and directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to make investigation and to submit the report on November 5, 1993. In the meantime, on November 1, 1993, Ms. Malhotra wrote a letter to the Home Secretary thus:-

(2.) She enclosed in the said letter complete copy of the petition along with the copy of the affidavits etc. She also informed that the case was posted "for hearing on 5-11-93" and that the Court had directed him to personally investigate into the case and file an affidavit before the Court. She requested him to be present in Delhi with the above details by November 5, 1993. On November 2, 1993, she wrote another letter to Shri Kalyan Rudra, DGP, Haryana wherein while reiterating the facts of earlier letter, she stated thus:

(3.) She further stated that the Court had directed him to personally investigate into the matter and file an affidavit by November 4, 1993 and that the case would be heard on November 5, 1993. She also requested him to talk to her personally on the telephones and numbers thereof had been given. This Court by order dated December 8, 1993 in Afzal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 1 SCC 425, noted that the first affidavit of M.S. Ahlawat, Superintendent of Police was filed in this Court on November 2, 1993 and another affidavit was filed on November 5, 1993. The Court also had noted that Inspector Ishaq Ahmad was primarily responsible for wrongful and illegal confinement of two minor boys. This Court opined that a detailed enquiry was necessary to find out the truth and the tenor of the averments made in two affidavits of Ahlawat and that the forgery of his signature was made in the first one; veracity of allegations and counter-allegations by the officers and the role played by each of the respondents would be ascertained. Therefore, this Court had directed the District Judge, Faridabad to make an enquiry and to submit the report within six weeks from the date of the receipt of that order. The District Judge, had given opportunity to all the persons and he opined and concluded that "the assertion of Ishwar Singh, S. I. did not appear to be veracious and impeccable. The trend and tenor of the statements made by various police officers/officials during the course of the enquiry tended to suggest that they tried to toe the line of one or the other group of two factions of the Railway Police branding each other with charges and counter charges. The manner in which Ishwar Singh, the senior most in the group of police officials concerned with the preparation of counter-affidavits and briefing the Standing Counsel did not object to the filing of a forged affidavit, spoke volumes of the tendentious nature of the stand taken by him". He also held that M.S. Ahlawat was not responsible in the episode. On receipt of the report, by order dated October 19, 1994 in Afzal v. State of Haryana, (1994) (7) SC 167, this Court opined that "the affidavit of Ahlawat dated September 5, 1993, his evidence before the Dist. Judge, and the report of the latter do establish that the signature of Ahlawat is forged on the affidavit dated September 30, 1993 and the question as to who had forged it needs thorough investigation to take deterrent action. It cannot be lightly brushed aside of the tendency to file false affidavits or fabricated documents or forgery of the document and placing them as part of the record of the Court and they are matters of grave and serious concern. Therefore, we are of the view that a thorough investigation is necessary in this behalf". Accordingly, Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was entrusted with the task of investigation, if necessary, with the assistance of hand-writing expert and report was directed to be submitted as expeditiously as possible within three months from the date of the receipt of this Court's order.