SURENDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the remarks passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 16/2001 in his judgment dated 4.9.2003 with the prayer to expunge the same from the order as also for quashing of the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the aforesaid impugned judgment/order.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case for disposal of this petition are that at the relevant time, petitioner was posted as S.H.O., Police Station, Mathura Gate, Bharatpur in the year 2000. During his posting as S.H.O., Police Station, Mathura Gate, Bharatpur, on a Parcha Bayan dated 15.6.2000 of one Shri Chotey Lal S/o Bhoori Singh police registered F.I.R. No. 329/2000 against accused persons for committing offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The investigation of the case was done by Shri Banwari Lal Yadav Sub Inspector. During the course of investigation, he recorded statements of witnesses, inspected the site, prepared site-plan and recovered various articles lying at the place of occurrence. Banwari Lal S.I. arrested accused Roop Kishore and on his information a Twelve bore gun and cartridges were recovered. The gun so recovered was seized by him and the same was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for examination. A receipt thereof was obtained from Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur on 7.12.2000. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused persons for offence under section 307 I.P.C. and under Section 3/27 of the Arms Act. The fire-arms sent for examination to FSL, Jaipur were received back by the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur along with a letter on 6.3.2002 with certain objections. The Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur sent the articles received from FSL to the S.H.O., Police Station, Mathura Gate, Bharatpur namely the petitioner. The petitioner after making compliance of the directions, again sent the articles along with requisition letter to Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur to issue necessary letter to the FSL, Jaipur regarding examination of articles in question and after issuance of the same the articles were again deposited at FSL, Jaipur on 21.6.2003 and a receipt thereof was obtained on 21.6.2003. During this time accused was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons. In all the prosecution examined 23 witnesses and tendered several document in evidence including the receipts dated 7.12.2000 and 21.6.2003 respectively Ex.P20 and Ex.P28 in relation to deposit of the seized articles issued by the FSL, Jaipur. The learned trial court after hearing final submissions, acquitted the accused from the charges framed against them vide its judgment dated 4.9.2003.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. It has been contended that the remarks are required to be expunged as without giving any opportunity to the petitioner adverse remarks against him have been recorded in the judgment, which has ruined the entire future service of the petitioner. It has also been contended that the trial court while issuing direction to the higher authorities of the petitioner for taking action against him, which is without jurisdiction and arbitrary in manner. It is contended that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is almost settled on the point that without affording proper opportunity, if adverse remarks are entered in the judgment then the same should be expunged. It has also been contended that the trial court has not properly scrutinized the evidence in this regard, which was available with the trial court in as much as the trial court has overlooked the receipts Ex.P20 and Ex.P28 as also the statements of the Investigating Officer P.W.23 Banwari Lal and P.W.18 Hari Singh, who had taken the articles to FSL, Jaipur. As such the remarks made by the learned trial court that the gun was not sent to FSL, Jaipur is contrary to the record of the case to the extent that it could not be ascertained as to whether any fire was made from the gun recovered in the case. It has also been contended that Shri Banwari Lal P.W.23 has appeared as witness in the case but no explanation was sought from him about not sending the gun for examination in the FSL, Jaipur. It is submitted that the role of the petitioner as S.H.O. at the relevant time in the present matter was limited to the extent of filing of charge-sheet and has done nothing in the case after completion of the investigation. The learned counsel in support of his submissions has placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Testa Setalvad and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., 2004(2) RCR(Criminal) 832 : 2004(2) RCR(Civil) 662 : 2004(3) Apex Criminal 42 : 2004(10) SCC 88; State of W.B. and Ors. v. Babu Chakraborthy, 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 252 : 2004(3) Apex Criminal 500 : 2004(12) SCC 201 and The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703.