SHIV LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is known to the people of State of Rajasthan that there is a project Suddatha Ka Liya Yuddha and facts of this case will show that how the public at large is suffering because of collusion in between the persons who are responsible to prevent the food adulteration with the persons who are engaged in the food adulteration.

(2.) THE appellant was SHO at relevant time and was posted at police station Khanda Phalsa, Jodhpur and allegations and findings recorded against him in brief are quoted here from the order of the Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur,Range Jodhpur dated 17.5.2008: ßvihykFkhZ ij eq[; vkjksi mlds Fkkuk {ks= esa fLFkr egs ''ojh Qwy izksMsD ''ku xhrk Hkou] tks/kiqj ds ;gka ls udyh ?kh dk dkjksckj idM+k tkus] udyh ?kh ds uewuk [kk| fujh{kd ls ugha HkjkusA ek= 2&2 fdyksxzke ds uewuk lSEiy ds vfrfjä ''ksk udyh ?kh dh cjkeÌxh ugha dh xbZA ekSds ij vihykFkhZ Lo;a Fkkukf/kdkjh dh gSfl;r ls ekStwn Fks] exj dk;Zokgh Lo;a }kjk ugha dj v/khuLFk dfuV vf/kdkjh ls djok;h x;hA bl dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku Hkh vihykFkhZ ekSdk ij Fks] exj lqijfotu ugha fd;kA bl vfHk;ksx dks vlaKs; vijk/k dh /kkjk 272 Hkknla - esa iathc) fd;k x;kA bl izfr Hkh lqijfotu ugha fd;k] lkFk gh bl vfHk;qä ds fo:) iwoZ esa Hkh 3 izdj.k feykoV ds ntZ gq, FksA ftl ckcr Hkh v/khuLFk dks dksbZ funsZf ''kr ugha fd;k x;kA tcfd Fkkukf/kdkjh ds ukrs mUgsa izdj.k ds vuqla/kku esa lgh ekxZn ''kZu djuk pkfg, Fkk tks ugha fd;kA gkykafd vihykFkhZ dh blesa dksbZ cn;kfUr izrhr ugha gksrh gSA vfirq lqijfotu dh ykijokgh vko ''; gh jgh gSA ijUrq fd;s x;s ÑR; ds vuq:Ik fn;k x;k n.M vf/kd izrhr gksrk gSAÞ

(3.) THE facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner was in -charge of police station Khanda Phalsa, In a raid adulterated ghee was recovered from the factory and not from the shop. Only 2 kg of sample was taken and rest of the ghee was not recovered inspite of the fact that petitioner, in the capacity of the SHO of police station concerned was present on spot. The allegation is that instead of doing investigation himself, he got investigation from his junior officer and during this investigation, the petitioner SHO of the police station, remained present on the spot. Against the same factory three more cases were registered on earlier occasion of adulteration and information about these three earlier cases of food adulteration was not given to the court concerned. The defence taken by the petitioner was rejected by in departmental enquiry yet it has been held that there was no ill motive of the petitioner.