HIMANSHUDHAR DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dtd. 27/4/2011 (Annexure A/3) where after deciding a criminal case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Panna, in Sessions Trial No.138/2010 passed an order asking the Superintendent of Police, Panna, to take action against the petitioner, who was the Investigating Officer of the case.

(2.) The petitioner is a police officer and is a part of the investigation of Crime No.156/2010 registered at Police Station Amanganj, district Panna, for offences punishable under Sec. 25 and 27 Arms Act along with Sec. 399 and 402 IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused and the charges were framed. Pursuant to the trial, the accused persons were acquitted.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has discharged his responsibilities with utmost honesty and sincerity in the capacity of the Investigating Officer. He has further stated that merely because the case has ended in an acquittal, it cannot be a ground for initiating action against the Investigating Officer. He further states that a case may end at acquittal for various reasons, including the witnesses to the seizure turning hostile over which the petitioner has no control as an Investigating Officer. He further submits that even otherwise, where the court feels that certain strictures must be passed against an Investigating Officer or action taken against him, it is essential in the interest of complying with the provisions of natural justice that he be given an opportunity and be heard with regard to those lapses which the court feels happened in the case because of the Investigating Officer.