MADAN PAL SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HAMIRPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. M. Sahai, J. The petition has been filed against adverse entry awarded to the petitioner who was a constable clerk at police station, Kurara, Hamirpur for mis behaving with Swamidin, his wife and son in the police station after there arrest on 16-2-1996. The appeal and revision of petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) THE proceedings were started on complaint filed by Swamidin and others on 27-3-1996 to the Government which was referred by U. P. SC/st Commission to Senior Superintendent of Police, Hamir pur. In the show-cause notice based on the allegations in the complaint it was stated that the petitioner and two other con stables came to the complainants house near about 9. 00-10. 00 p. m. on 16-2-1996 and forcibly took away the sons of com plainant. He and his wife immediately went to the police station, where he, his wife and his sons were beaten severely by fist, leg and shoes. It was also alleged that station officer and police constables deprived the complainant of money and jewellery of his wife. THE Senior Superin tendent of Police in inquiry report held that from entries in general diary main tained in the police station it was clear that departure of constable Kanhiya Lal, Sahadev and Krishna Avtar is recorded at 9. 00-10 p. m. on 16-2-1996. THE entpy of 17-2-1996at 00. 15 a. m. shows return of the constables along with three accused Swamidin, his son and his wife who were arrested under Sections 151/107/116, I. P. C. THE Senior Superintendent of Police held that from material on record it was clear that petitioner was one of the con stables who had gone to the house of Swamidin and arrested them. He further held that the petitioner, the station officer and other constables were guilty of mis behaving with Swamidin, his son and his wife and beating them is proved. THE find ing was endorsed by the Senior Superin tendent of Police after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner. In appeal filed by the station officer it was held that from general diary entries in police station it is clear that he left the police station at 7. 25 p. m. on 16-2-1996 and returned at 11. 30 p. m. whereas the incident of beating the complainants is stated to have taken place at 10. 30 p. m. thereafter his presence was not established. His appeal was conse quently allowed. THE allegation of snatch ing of money and jewellery was not proved. But the appeal of the petitioner was dis missed as the entries of general diary are not made minute to minute. THE appellate authority held that entries in general diary about arrival, departure and registration of crime is recorded only when necessity for it arises. THE appellate authority fur ther held that from entries in police station it was not established that records were maintained minute to minute.

(3.) I am satisfied from perusal of the records that the findings recorded by the respondents are such that it cannot be maintained.