D. ROOPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHAN Shantanagoudar, J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay A. Patil, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and perused the records. This petition is filed praying to expunge certain remarks made against the Investigating Officer as well as Superintendent of Police, Yadgir, while acquitting the accused by the Sessions Court, Yadgir in S.C. No. 101/2010.

(2.) THE Sessions Court after trial has acquitted the accused by assigning reasons. While acquitting, certain observations are made against the Investigating Officer in paragraph 27 of the judgment. The Sessions Judge has observed that the Investigating Officer has not made any effort to trace out the victim girl from 23.04.2010 to 03.05.2010, which shows the utter carelessness and negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer in conducting the investigation. Further, it is observed by the Sessions Court that Superintendent of Police, Yadgir who is under in -charge of the District has to monitor the investigation in all the matters, particularly, when in the said District cases of abduction and kidnapping of women and minors are stated to be rampant. Further it is observed that the Police Officer should not act negligently and carelessly and should be sensitive towards the case. The observations seem to have been made keeping the social interest in mind. This Court does not find any ground to set aside such observations. If the Court while trying the case finds that investigation is not properly conducted, it is always open for the Sessions Court conducting the trial to make such observations. The said observations are made only to meet the situation and not with a view to take action against any of the official. If any action were to be taken against any of the official, definitely, notice will be issued to them before proceeding further. In the matter on hand, observations were made only for the purpose of safeguarding the interest of society. The Sessions Judge is of the view that the investigation should be conducted in accordance with law and with due diligence. There should not be any insensitive attitude, negligence or carelessness on the part of the Investigating Officer. The Superintendent of Police of Yadgir District being the head of the District, in such matters should monitor the investigation, keeping in mind the interest of the people at large. Since the observations are in the interest of institution and State at large, no interference is called for. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. It is made clear that said observations are made only for the purpose of improving the system of investigation not for any other purpose. The departmental action shall not be taken against the concerned Investigating Officer or the Superintendent of Police, based on such observations.