PAUL GEORGE Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision petition, the petitioner is challenging the order and judgment dated 19.9.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate against the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court under Section 279 read with Section 304-A IPC and was sentenced to nine months Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

(2.) The facts in brief are that on 29.6.1992, the petitioner who was a Head Constable serving with the Delhi Police, was directed to go to the Police Headquarters at ITO from Police Station Kashmiri Gate to convey a message from the Communications Wing at Police Station Kashmiri Gate for the Police Headquarters at ITO. On that date, the petitioner who was a driver carried the message while driving an Alwyn Nissan Mini Truck bearing Registration No DDL- 6462. He is said to have been accompanied by another Head Constable. On 29.6.1992 itself at about 6. 00 p.m., one Hans Kumar was returning from his office on his scooter bearing Registration No. HNE-3892 and his friend Atma Ram (since deceased) was sitting on the pillion seat of the said scooter. When the scooter was under the railway bridge on the Ring Road going towards Jamuna Bazar, the said mini truck driven by the petitioner is reported to have come from the opposite direction, crossed over the road divider and hit the scooter on the rear. It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter, the driver of the said government vehicle (mini truck) attempted to steer it back onto the road running from Jamna Bazar towards Rajghat. While doing so, the said mini truck hit an electric pole and came to a halt. The Mechanical Inspection Report revealed that the front right wheel of the said mini truck was damaged in such a way that the wheels were jammed and the vehicle had to come to a stop. When the said Government mini truck hit the scooter, the said Atma Ram sustained injuries. The Police Control Room (PCR) van was called and Atma Ram was taken to Jai Prakash Narain Hospital. Subsequently, the said Atma Ram passed away having succumbed to the injuries received due to the impact. As the petitioner was found driving the said mini truck bearing Registration No. DDL-6462, he was convicted of offences under Section 279 read with Section 304-A IPC for having driven the vehicle rashly or negligently.

(3.) Earlier by an order dated 25.0.2001 a learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed this Revision Petition. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner herein urged that the Criminal Revision Petition had been dismissed by the High Court by virtue of the order dated 25.9.2001 which was a non-speaking order. It was submitted before the Supreme Court that one of the pleas raised before the High Court was that the prosecution of the petitioner was bad for want of sanction by the competent authority. It was contended that the petitioner had been working in the police department as a driver and at the time of occurrence, he was driving an official vehicle in performance of an official duty and, therefore, he had been acting under the colour of duty. Accordingly, it was submitted that it was obligatory to obtain sanction before initiation of prosecution under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act. It was also urged before the Supreme Court that the petitioner had also taken the point before the High Court that there were no eye witnesses to state that there was rash or negligent driving on the part of the petitioner and that the trial court as well as the appellate court had erred in fastening guilt upon the petitioner only by application of the maxim res ipsa loquitur. After granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court, by virtue of its judgment dated 21.1.2002 [Paul George v State: (2002) 2 SCC 406] set aside the order dated 25.9.2001 essentially on the ground that no reasons were given for the dismissal of the revision petition. The Supreme Court remanded the case to this Court for its disposal afresh. It also ordered that the petitioner be released on bail forthwith during pendency of the revision before this Court. It is in these circumstances, that the present revision petition has been heard and is being decided afresh in accordance with law as directed by the Supreme Court.