GURRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) F .I.R. No. 157 dated 23.9.2002 under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was registered at Police Station City Muktsar against the petitioner, who is a Head Constable in the Punjab Police. During investigation, the allegations against the petitioner were found false and, accordingly, cancellation report dated 27.6.2003 was submitted. The cancellation report, after notice to complainant Balwinder Singh, who disagreed with the same, was not accepted and the trial Judge vide order dated 10.4.2004 (Annexure P-3) ordered reinvestigation in the case. The matter was reinvestigated and again cancellation report was submitted. The trial judge again disagreed with the cancellation report vide order dated 6.12.2004 (Annexure P-4) and ordered the police to reinvestigate the matter with a further direction to join complainant Balwinder Singh in the investigation. Again, the police submitted cancellation report and the trial Judge third time sent back the matter to the quarters concerned for reinvestigation. The same process was adopted by the trial Judge vide order dated 13.9.2008 (Annexure P-6) when the police submitted cancellation report for the fourth time. Hence this petition by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) I have heard Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Rajni Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State and have gone through the records of the case.

(3.) IN the case of R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu and others, 2000(2) RCR(Crl.) 637 (Madras), where the Madras High Court had directed the Investigating Officer to submit the amended charge-sheet in accordance with the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, it was observed by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the High Court had committed an illegality in directing the final report to be taken back and to file a fresh report incorporating the opinion of the Public Prosecutor. For this opinion, support was derived from a three- Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi, 1955(1) SCR 1150 wherein, after delineating the different steps in investigation as contemplated in the Code, it was pointed out that the formation of opinion, whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial should be that of the officer in charge of the Police Station and none else. Only superior police officers are entitled to supervise the investigation.