BHUPINDER PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS will dispose of Criminal Revision No. 1421 of 1981 filed by Bhupinder Pal Singh working a Assistant District Attorney II challenging the order dated December 3, 1981, of the Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby he was directed to be charged with the commission of an offence under Section 201 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. There had earlier been an order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gidderbaha dated October 12, 1981, by which Bhupinder Pal Singh together with Gurbachan Singh Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at the committal stage had been ordered to be discharged by holding that the of fence in the given circumstances could only be one covered by section 192 of the Indian Penal Code which is punishable under section 193 of that Code.

(2.) IN the first information report got recorded on November 4, 1979, at Police Station, Lambi, Darshan Singh along with three other persons was said to have committed the murder of Daljit Singh. That occurrence took place at about 10.30 p.m. on November 3, 1979. It is alleged against the petitioner and Gurbachan Singh Assistant Sub-Inspector that they created such evidence of alibi as to enable Darshan Singh to escape punishment in the murder case. It was said that Darshan Singh had some opium with him in relation to which he had been arrested earlier to the time of the murder. Gurbachan Singh Assistant Sub-Inspector became the investigating officer in this case and showed the presence of Gurdip Singh, a Head Constable, in the raid party. All this was said to have been done at the instigation of the petitioner. The Magistrate had also held that no case against Gurdip Singh was made out and for that reason Buta Singh who was the complainant in the murder case filed Criminal Revision No. 72 of 1982 against the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gidderbaha, dated October 12, 1981, so as to get him committed for trial for the offence under section 201/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Both the abovesaid revision are being decided together.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate correctly took this view that it was not a case of causing the disappearance of the evidence about the commission of the offence but was in fact a case of fabricating false evidence.