Delhi High Court
Balraj Singh vs Commissioner Of Police & Ors. on 7 July, 2010
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No. 3689/2010
% Date of Decision: 07.07.2010
BALRAJ SINGH .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Adv.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS .... Respondents
Through Mr. Anjum Javed, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)
*
1. At a departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer returned a
finding of guilt against the petitioner and co-delinquent
employees Constable Krishan Pal and Kanwar Pal.
2. After complying with the procedures of the law and
considering the response of the petitioner to the report of the
enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority inflicted the penalty of
withholding of one increment for a period of 5 years
permanently.
3. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal filed and
hence the petitioner approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal.
4. From the pleadings before the Central Administrative
Tribunal and the impugned order dated 16.12.2008, it is
apparent that the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was
that there was no legally admissible evidence against him to
return the verdict of guilt. The said stand was predicated on the
fact that PW-5 Rajesh Kumar did not support the case of the
prosecution. But, two prosecution witnesses namely S.I. Anil
Kumar (PW-1) and Inspector Sukhram (PW-2) stood their ground,
but, with reference to their testimony, the case of the petitioner
was that their testimony was hearsay.
5. To appreciate the contentions urged, suffice would it be to
note that the indictment against the petitioner was that he along
with co-delinquents indulged in the malpractices of demanding
and accepting illegal entry money from commercial vehicles on
the pretext of checking the non-destined vehicles. The case of
the department was that complaints were received pertaining to
Police officers indulging in such kind of malpractice and to verify
the authenticity of the information special team comprising
Inspector P.P. Singh, Inspector Sukhram (PW-2) and S.I. Anil
Kumar (PW-1) was formed under the supervision of ACP
Satyavrat. On the night intervening 03/04.09.2005, the time
being 11.00 PM, the aforenoted team member reached near Toll
Plaza at Ghazipur Border and observed that there was a Toll Tax
Booth under the flyover on the service road, which is parallel to
the flyover. Some commercial vehicles were found making
entry into Delhi via this road. It was noted that the incoming
commercial vehicles from the state of U.P. on NH-24 were not
using the flyover but were, at a distance of about 500 meters
from the flyover, taking a detour. It was further noted that a
truck bearing registration No. HR-38-K-1762 entered into Delhi.
Its driver was Rajesh Kumar (PW-5). As per the indictment,
Rajesh Kumar told the Police officers that he has bribed the
petitioner as well as co-delinquents to make an illegal entry into
Delhi notwithstanding that the goods under carriage as per
invoice documents were to be delivered in Mumbai. It is the
further indictment that Rajesh Kumar was brought back along
with his truck to the Toll Booth in question where one out of the
three delinquent employees threw something in the bushes on
the side of the road and on recovery was found to be containing
Rs.2700/- which was seized and a seizure memo was drawn up.
It was the further indictment that the statement of Rajesh
Kumar (PW-5) was recorded during preliminary enquiry in which
he indicted the petitioner.
7. At the enquiry, Inspector Sukhram (PW-2) and S.I. Anil
Kumar (PW-1) fully stood by the indictment and proved the
various memos which were drawn at the spot as also the
recovery of Rs.2700/- from the bushes nearby. Rajesh Kumar
(PW-5) the driver of the truck admitted his signatures on his
statement which was recorded but claimed that his signatures
were obtained on a blank paper which was later on used to draw
out his statement. But, relevant would it be to note that Rajesh
Kumar did not refute that he did drive the truck in question and
entered the Union Territory of Delhi from Ghaziabad side.
8. In view of the aforenoted evidence the Tribunal has
returned a finding that it is not a case of no evidence as was
sought to be urged.
9. The Tribunal has held and, in our opinion correctly, that
sufficiency and insufficiency of evidence to sustain an
indictment cannot be gone into by the Appellate Tribunal.
Indeed the weightage to be attached to evidence and its nature
to sustain a verdict varies depending upon the type of enquiry
and its nature. It is the highest at a criminal trial. It assumes
lower standards of probability to be achieved at a civil trial. At a
domestic enquiry it is the lowest.
10. We may only add that notwithstanding PW-5 turning
hostile the indictment certainly stands established through the
testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. It is not a case, as is being
projected that the enquiry officer has returned a verdict of guilt
on the basis of the statement of PW-5 recorded during
preliminary enquiry from which he resiled regular enquiry.
11. No case is made out to interfere. The writ petition is
dismissed in limine.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J
MOOL CHAND GARG, J
JULY 07, 2010
ag
