TIKAMCHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for cancellation of bail under Sec. 439(2) Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur (Shri Sunil Kumar Garg) under his order dated July 10, 1992, had allowed pre-arrest bail to the accused- non-petitioner No.

(2.) Tikam Chand, the petitioner herein, has made an application for cancellation on the ground that the accused-non-petitioner No. 2 Harbanslal Khurana committed forgery in respect of some judicial record in which a case was registered against him and Harbanslal Khurana was allowed pre-arrest bail as aforesaid.

(3.) The plaintiff, the petitioner herein, closed his evidence and the case was then adjourned and the defendant Surya Narain wanted to lead evidence sometime in October, 1986 also on the point of default. The petitioner filed an application immediately and raised an objection that the defence of the defendant had been struck off as aforesaid and be could not lead any evidence in so far as the point of default is concerned. The defendant denied in the reply to the application that his defence against eviction has been struck off. The petitioner then came to know that the page of the Court file containing the order-sheet dated January 5, 1984, under which the defence of defendant against eviction had been struck-off has been substituted by another order-sheet. The petitioner was quite cautious and he had secured a certified copy of the earlier order-sheet dated January 5,1984. He produced the same in order to substantiate his plea that the order-sheet which was in the file in fact has been substituted by another order- sheet. This fact prima facie cannot be disputed. The petitioner filed a complaint to the Chief Justice in respect of this gross misconduct of the non-petitioner who was the Reader attached to the court of Add. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 4 Jaipur City and also complained that the order-sheet from the court file has been substituted by the non-petitioner No. 2 in collusion with the , defendant. A Preliminary Enquiry was initiated and the Addl. District Judge No. 4 Jaipur City was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer on enquiry found that the non-petitioner the then Reader of the aforesaid Court was guilty of substitution of the aforesaid order-sheet. The non-petitioner No. 2 was then put under suspension and Disciplinary Enquiry was initiated under the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, the CCA Rules). Learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 6 Jaipur City, Jaipur was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The inquiry was completed on November 23, 1990 and the non- petitioner No. 2, the then Reader to the aforesaid court was found guilty of the charges and a penalty of removal from service was suggested. But the learned District Judge only inflicted a penalty of with-holding of three grade increments with cumulative effect. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner in this Court for enhancement of the aforesaid penalty and I remember that it had come before me and I dismissed the same on the ground of locus standi of the petitioner. Though, I was of the opinion that the punishment awarded to the accused-non-petitioner No. 2 in a case of present nature was inadequate, but if the department would have come, the result of the writ petition might have been otherwise. In my opinion, how in a case where the judicial record has been substituted any punishment other than removal or dismissal from service could be adequate. The District Judge took a lenient view in the matter. The then District Judge, (Shri J.P. Bansal) should not have taken such a lenient view in the matter. Be that as it may, I am not sitting in appeal from the order of punishment inflicted on the non- petitioner No. 2 and I am not examining the question whether the order of punishment inflicted on the non- petitioner is adequate or not in a case of present nature. The question to be examined is as to whether the learned Sessions Judge should have allowed pre-arrest bail and if he had allowed bail whether it is a case calling for the exercise of my powers under Sec. 439(2) Cr.P.C. to cancel the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge.