A KHAJA KHALANDAR Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the minor punishment of 'censure' awarded against the petitioners by the 1st respondent, namely, the Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai, in his Proceedings in Rc.No.200443/Con.I(2)/2010, dated 22.04.2017.

(2.) The petitioners were appointed as Grade-II Police Constables in the year 1975. Subsequently, they were promoted as Grade-I Police Constables in the year 1992 and 1993 respectively and further promoted as Head Constables in the year 1998 and thereafter, promoted as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 2004 and 2005 respectively. While they were serving as Sub Inspector of Police at Poonamallee in Traffic Investigation Wing, one Mr.D.Raja, who is the owner of a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-67-X-2929, met with an accident on the highways and caused heavy traffic. Therefore, to remove the said lorry from the highway road, the Traffic Wing Police engaged a Recovery Van (private) and as the police demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards expenses for the said Recovery Van, he lodged a complaint before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department complaining about the petitioners that they have demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/-. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department laid a trap and the trap was successfully made on 25.05.2009 at about 14.40 hours at the office of the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 (A.1-R.Daniel and A.2-A.Khaja Khalandar) at Poonamallee Highways Traffic investigation Wing, Poonamallee. The first accused reiterated his earlier demand of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant/Mr.D.Raja as gratification other than legal remuneration, when the said Mr.D.Raja handed over the bribe amount to the 1st accused, it was received by him from the complainant and at the time when he was counting the said money, the 1st accused was caught red-handed. Therefore, an FIR was also registered against both the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 for the allegation of demand and acceptance of Rs.2,000/-, for releasing the lorry belonging to the complainant/Mr.D.Raja and sending it to the Regional Transport Office for brake test.

(3.) When the criminal case was taken up, the learned Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur, in Special Case No.20 of 2010, on a perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.15 and Ex.P.2-complaint and Ex.P.12-FIR, found that the Trap Laying Officer-P.W.15 had not made any preliminary enquiry either to know about the genuineness of the contents of the complaint or about the conduct of the accused, because, he has registered the FIR after receiving the compliant and that cannot be taken as an evidence for the alleged demand made by the first accused prior to the trap proceedings and the trial court has come to the conclusion that non-conducting of preliminary enquiry prior to the registration of FIR by P.W.15 is fatal to the case of prosecution. Accordingly, acquitted the petitioners herein.