Inspector Lakshmi Chand Yadav vs Commissioner Of Police & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 721 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+    Writ Petition (Civil) No. 790/2011


Inspector Lakshmi Chand Yadav        ....Petitioner
                Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Adv,


                  VERSUS

Commissioner of Police & Ors.              .....Respondents
                Through

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA


                               ORDER

%                             7.02.2011
SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Inspector Lakshmi Chand Yadav assails order of the Central

Administrative Tribunal dated 13th July, 2010 dismissing his petition

for quashing the order of Censure.

2. One Anju (maid servant) was arrested in F.I.R.No.120/2008

under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police

Station Vikas Puri. In her disclosure statement, Anju had stated that

she had sold jewellery to one Ram Bahadur Verma of Shastri Jewellers

in Pauri (Uttranchal). The investigating officer ASI Balram did not

arrest the said jeweller but accepted his plea that the jewellery was

given to him under a mortgage deed (girvinama).

3. ASI Balram was proceeded against and was censured and he

has accepted the said punishment. The petitioner was SHO of the said

police station and the allegation against him was that he did not

bother to supervise the investigation. It was further alleged that he

had left everything on the investigating officer which reflected poorly

on his performance as an SHO. Show cause notice was issued to the

petitioner but he did not respond or submit reply. Deputy

Commissioner of Police, the Disciplinary Authority held that the

petitioner as a SHO was required to supervise and guide the IO at

various stages of investigation and there was lapse and failure on his

part. His conduct and attitude was unprofessional. Petitioner filed an

appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority observing :-

"The pleas of the appellant are not convincing. He cannot absolve from his supervisory lapse. An SHO is a chief investigating officer and it was his duty to supervise the investigation properly. He has failed to perform his duty as supervising officer and left at the mercy of the ASI who did not take the investigation to logical conclusion and failed to arrest the receiver of stolen property. This is a serious lapse on his part. As such, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter. The punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is

not excessive and the same is maintained. The appeal is rejected."

4. Learned Tribunal has refused to interfere with the said

punishment of censure after recording the following reasons:

" We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, as per Section 411 IPC. There is no dispute that the goldsmith was recipient of the stolen property. Whether he had dishonestly received or retained the same, knowing or having reason to believe that the same was a stolen property, would depend upon facts of the case. The allegation against the IO and the applicant is primarily that before forming of such opinion and not arresting the goldsmith, the facts disclosed by the goldsmith were taken as gospel truth, and no verification was done. On that count there was no reply forthcoming at all from the applicant. Normally, the police would arrest a person who has received stolen property and leave it to the court to form the opinion as to whether he has dishonestly received the same or had reasons to believe that the same was stolen property. Be that as it may, some material facts were required to be ascertained in this case. No doubt, the IO could reach to a conclusion that the goldsmith could not be booked under provisions of Section 411, but before doing so, he ought to have verified his statement and seen other attendant circumstances as well. How much was the quantity of the gold that was stolen, how much money it would have normally fetched, and for how much money it was mortgaged, was one important aspect

which had to be taken into consideration. We are not even told even now as to how much was the quantity of the stolen gold, although we find from the records the mortgage amount was Rs.35,000/-. For instance, if the gold was 20 tolas and was mortgaged for an amount of Rs.35,000/-. It may prima facie show that the goldsmith would have reasons to believe it to be a stolen property. The allegation against the IO and the applicant is also that the main accused was not interrogated to find out the true facts, nor any witnesses were examined in that connection. In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find it a case where it may need interference, particularly when the allegations against the applicant are of such nature which can be best looked into by the higher police officers."

5. Learned Tribunal has properly considered the entire matter

from all perspectives. The findings of the disciplinary authority and

the appellate authority have been accepted after giving cogent and

relevant reasons. There is no infirmity and illegality in the order

passed by the Tribunal which requires interference under Article 226

of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed

in limine.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE February 07, 2011 Bisht/VKR