SHEOPRASAD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 481, Cr. P.C. the petitioner seeks quashment of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3567/2000 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur.

(2.) From the records of the Trial Court, it appears that Crime No, 12/2000 was registered against the applicant-accused for offences punishable under Section 41 (1-4)1379. IPC. The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur received an anonymous in land letter wherein it was mentioned by some public spirited (?) person that accused Shiv Das Manikpuri and Tribhuvan, both r/o Deorikhurd were residing at Naharnaii adjoining some public tank. The said letter further said that from unknown source the said informant learnt that those two persons found a bag containing hundred rupees and five hundred rupees notes, totalling Rs., 5 lacs and the said persons, who were rik-shaw pullers by vocation, were spending the money. The said letter further said that some investigation or inquiry be made into his allegations s9 that the real facts and the truth are unearthed. It is not known as to who gave the letter either to the Sub-Inspector or to the Head Constable for making investigation but the investigation commenced on 22-6-2000. The case diary, which is annexed with the Trial CourtTs record records one single proceeding dated 22-6-2000. It reads that on suspicion of the money (article) being of theft, certain inquiries were made. On 22-6-2000 Sanha No. 1044 was recorded at Police Station Torba. The said Rojnamcha report says that the Head constable 861-Dhruv Kumar Sharma on 22-6-2000 through the informer received the information that the accused Shiv parsed was keeping theft money with him. Neither the Rojndmcha nor the details says that at what time the information was received. The Rojnamcha details do not refer to the letter which was earlier received by the Superintendent of Police. The Rojnamcha further reads that after receiving the information the Head Constable Dhruv Kumar Sharma along with the staff and the witnesses made a raid on the spot. A sum of Rs. 8.000/- was seized. The inquiries were made from the accused and the accused admitted before the police that the said amount was bad junoney. The accused thereafter was taken into custody and was kept in lock-up. From the proceedings recorded by the Trial Court it appears that on 22-6-2000 the applicant was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and in his turn made an application for grant of bail. The said application was allowed and the applicant was directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum -of Rs. 3,000/with one surety in the like amount. The case was adjourned to 5-7-2000. On 5-7-2000, 17-7-2000, 8-8-2000, 7-9-2000, 18-9-2000, 10-10-2000 and 2-11-2000, at the request of the police/prosecution agency the case was adjourned for submission of the challan. On 16-11-2000, the challan was filed. On the same day, the accused made an application for release of the property in his favour. After hearing the parties, the leaped Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the said application. On 7-12-2000, the applicant filed this petition making a complaint that no incriminating evidence nor anything is available on the record to connect him with the alleged crime. Therefore, the proceedings pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate deserve to be quashed.

(3.) This Court after hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant issued notice and called for the records from the Trial Court. The parties were heard to some extent and this Court thereafter thought that presence of the Sub-Inspector and the Investigating Officer, i.e. Dhruv Kumar Sharma was a must in the Court, therefore, this Court directed that these persons should remain in attendance. The case was taken up for hearing on 2-3-2001, On 2-3-2001, Dr. N. K. Shukla and Shri Nishad submitted before the Court that Dhruv Kumar Sharma was directed to remain in attendance but he was not present in the Court. As Dhruv Kumar Sharma was not present in the Court, the case was adjourned from 2-3-2001 to 12-3-2001. Today finding that Dhruv Kumar Sharmawas not in his proper uniform the Court inquired from Mr. Nishad and Dr. Shukla as to why the said Head constable was not in his uniform. Dr. Shukla and Mr. Nishad informed the Court that on 2-3-2001 after adjournment of the case Dhruv Kumar Sharma came to the Court but as he was intoxicated and badly drunken, the matter was immediately referred to the higher Authorities, who on finding the said misconduct on the part of Dhruv Kumar Sharma immediately put him under suspension.