RAMA RAMAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. On 13.01.2000, National Human Rights Commission passed an order, copy of which is enclosed as annexure 3. That order says that Mehtab, Son of Md. Numani, was the actual accused in the case, but the police arrested the complainant, whose name is Mehtab Alam, Son of Mumtaz Alam, and put him in the jail where he remained for 40 days and it was alleged before the Commission that the police was bribed for this illegal act. The Commission also found that there was an indirect admission in the report received about this mistake, but it had been stated in the report that the investigating police officer had been suspended and departmental proceeding had commenced. The Commission, therefore, directed for payment of Rs. 50,000/-by the State of Bihar to the aggrieved person and also directed the amount to be recovered from the Investigating Police Officer.

(2.) The National Human Rights Commission is not a party to the writ petition and its decision dt. 13.01.2000 is, therefore, not capable of challenge. That decision having attained finality, the issue which remains to be decided is whether the petitioner was the investigating police officer. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he had been suspended. The impugned order (Annexure 9) records a specific finding that the petitioner was the Investigating Officer of Potka P.S. Case No. 48/94.

(3.) Therefore, this is essentially a question of pure fact, on which a clear finding has been recorded in the impugned order and the same can not be reversed in this writ jurisdiction.