ASI KAILASH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASI Kailash Chander and HC Lovlin Kumar have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing order dated 25.11.2006 (Annexure P-1) of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar.

(2.) ON the night between 29/30.04.2006, police party comprising of the petitioners and other police officials, while on patrol duty, received secret information that poppy husk was being transported in Tempo traveller vehicle bearing No. PB-01-4177. On the basis of this secret information, FIR No.52 dated 29.04.2006 was got registered in Police Station Nurmahal under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Thereafter, at about 12:15 A.M., the aforesaid vehicle was seen coming, but on being signalled by the police party to stop, the vehicle did not stop and rather was sped away. Police party chased the said vehicle. On instructions of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 2 fired three shots from his AK-47 rifle at the aforesaid offending vehicle resulting in death of Satnam Singh Satti (on being hit by one shot), who was travelling in the said vehicle being driven by his brother Palwinder Singh. Four bags of poppy husk were found in the said vehicle. On Magisterial inquiry, vide Inquiry Report (Annexure P-2), Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar concluded that petitioner No. 1, as Supervisory Officer, was guilty of not performing his duty in a proper manner on account of not issuing clear orders to open firing in the air and petitioner No. 2 is guilty of gross negligence in performing his duties for which he is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It was also observed that the incident occurred with intent to perform official duty in order to apprehend the persons involved in smuggling of poppy husk and not with an intention to kill any particular person intentionally. On the basis of this Inquiry Report, FIR (Annexure P-3) was registered. After investigation, the police submitted cancellation report (Annexure P-4).

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 2 states that respondent No. 2 has no objection to the acceptance of the instant petition.