HOSHIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against notification No. 49 (G8)2-JJ-68/14465, dated the 12th June, 19g8, issued by the Haryana Government Home (Judicial Department ). This notification is in the following terms:--"whereas it has been reported that a police party had gone to village tilda Police Station Bawal, District Gurgaon, on the 21st May, 19g8, for the execution of a warrant under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, for the recovery of Mrs. Anchai and there took place a clash between the police party and the villagers, during which as a result of firing two persons died and a few others received injuries and Bus No. RJK-3187 which carried the police party was also set on fire: and whereas the Governor of Haryana 5s of the opinion that the said incident of firing is a matter of public importance and it is necessary to hold an enquiry thereinto; now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, the Governor of Haryana hereby appoints Shri Ved Parkash Aggarwal, Additional District and Sessions judge, Gurgaon, as the Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry in respect of the following matters: - (i) to consider the sequences of events and the causes which led to the firing and setting on fire of Bus No. RJK-3187 at village Tikla, Police Station Bawal, (ii) to determine whether the force used by the police was justified. " earlier to that, on the 21st of May, 1968, the following first information report had been recorded:--

(2.) THIS petition came up for hearing before Shamsher Bahadur, J. on the 27th october, 1969, and the learned Judge felt that the matter was of sufficient importance and should be decided by a Division Bench; that is how, the matter has been placed before us.

(3.) THE short question, that arises for determination is, whether during the pendency of a criminal trial, a parallel inquiry could be conducted by the government into the matter relating to incidents leading to that trial. Mr. H. S. Gujral, learned counsel for the petitioner, has dropped his case so far as the question of notification ordering inquiry by the Additional District Sessions Judge, gurgaon, is concerned. His only contention is that the inquiry should take place after the trial is over because the Inquiry will interfere with the conduct of the trial. It will appear from the first information report as well as the terms of reference to the Inquiry Officer in the impugned notification that the Inquiry officer as well as the Court are to determine practically the same matter. It was for that reason that I have specifically reproduced the notification and the first information report. The matter is not res integra. The direct decision bearing on the point is that of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in The King v. Parmanand, AIR 1949 Pat 222. It was held in this case that-