R RAJAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been directed against the judgment dated 14-10-1998 delivered by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No. 117/98, whereby strictures have been passed against the petitioner who was Investigating Officer.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are these:-- One Smt. Shivwati @ Shiva was prosecuted for an offence under Sections 302 and 201 Part I of IPC. It was alleged that one Seema was playing in front of her house on the evening of 13-1-1997 and her parents were out of their residence. When her parents returned, they found Seema missing. A search was made and when Seema was not found, a report was lodged in Kotwali, Shahdol which was written in Rojnamcha Sanha pertaining to the missing person. In the next morning the dead body of Seema was found and the matter was again reported to the concerned police. It was alleged that the deceased Seema was died because of attack by some wild animal. The matter was then forwarded to the Medico Legal Institute, Bhopal. Thereupon, it was reported by the Medico Legal Institute, Bhopal that the cause of death of the deceased was due to throttling. The FIR was then registered on 6-3-1998. After investigation the challan was filed. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol after completion of trial acquitted the accused by judgment dated 14-10-1998 delivered in Session Trial No. 117/98. While acquitting the accused the learned Judge passed a stricture against the Investigating Officer who is the petitioner before this Court to the effect that the conduct of the petitioner for not registering a criminal case for a month even after receiving the report of the Medico Legal Institute becomes doubtful. On the basis of the above stricture passed against the petitioner a disciplinary action has been initiated against him. He has, therefore, filed this petition for expunction of the stricture passed against him.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for both the sides, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. It is manifest from the perusal of the record that the report of Medico Legal Institute was received in the office of the S. P. on 5-2-1998 which was sent to the petitioner who received it on 21-2-1998. The case was registered on 6-3-1998. On the basis of above facts, it cannot be said that there was any deliberate and well-planned delay by the petitioner in registering the offence against the accused. It is also apparently manifest that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of being heard before the stricture was passed against him. The principle of natural justice demands that the petitioner should have been given sufficient opportunity of being heard before the impugned stricture is passed against him.