Delhi High Court
Gulab Singh vs Commissioner Of Police & Anr. on 24 July, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: July 24, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 8594/2011
GULAB SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.K.K.Koul, Advocate
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR ..... Respondents
Represented by: Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. We note the contentions urged at the outset before we note the
relevant facts. It is urged that the petitioner was aged 19 years when he was
charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
It is secondly urged that the petitioner was acquitted at the trial in Sessions
Case No.10/2001. It is thirdly urged that the petitioner was duly selected to
be appointed as a Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police. It is lastly urged that
the petitioner is an honest person who truthfully disclosed while filling the
enrolment form that he was an accused in FIR No.12/2000 pertaining to
offences punishable under Section 341/307/34 IPC but was acquitted at
Sessions Trial No.10/2001 as per judgment dated March 28, 2001.
3. The relevant facts which we need to note before we deal with the four
contentions are that on January 23, 2000, FIR No.12/2000 was registered in
which the petitioner was named as an accused. Rakesh son of Shiv Kumar
had made a statement to the Investigating Officer stating therein that he was
running a small grocery shop and had lent `2,000/- to the petitioner and had
also given him goods on credit. He asked the petitioner for the money to be
returned and further money paid pertaining to the goods sold on credit. The
petitioner refused to do so. On January 23, 2000 while he was going to
deposit fee in the Open School where he had registered for Class X,
petitioner along with one Dayanand came on a scooter, stopped him and
attacked him with a knife and fled away.
4. At the trial, apart from the eye witness victim, who appeared as PW-1
Jagat Singh, Rajender, Rakesh and Dharampal Yadav appeared as PW-2 to
PW-5. Dharampal Yadav, it may be noted, is the father of the victim. All
turned hostile.
5. Rajesh stated that when he was parking his scooter somebody
attacked him from behind. He became unconscious and does not know what
had happened. Regretfully, the learned APP, on declaring the witness
hostile, did not cross-examine him properly. With reference to the MLC of
the victim he never questioned the victim as to how come he stated in Court
that he was attacked from behind when injuries as per the MLC ex-facie rule
out an assault from behind.
6. Be that as it may, employment as a Constable (Driver) has been
denied to the petitioner on the basis of a decision taken by the Screening
Committee constituted by the Commissioner of Police which has taken note
of FIR No.12/2000 and the circumstances under which the petitioner was
acquitted.
7. In a recent decision pronounced on July 03, 2013 disposing of CA
No.4842/2013 Commissioner of Police Vs. Mehar Singh and CA
No.4965/2013 Commissioner of Police VS. Shani Kumar, the Supreme
Court drew a distinction between eligibility and suitability. A person
acquitted at a criminal trial may not suffer any disability and hence may be
eligible to hold a public post. But such a person may not be suitable for
holding a public post. This answers the third submission urged that the
petitioner has been duly selected at a competitive selection process to be
appointed as a Constable (Driver).
8. The Supreme Court held that in case of acquittal, the manner, the
mode and the nature of the acquittal has to be kept in mind for the reason
public interest demands an in-depth examination of the character of a person
appointed to a police post and hence the Screening Committee must be alive
to the importance of the trust reposed in it. The Supreme Court has held that
case of acquittal or discharge will have to be examined with reference to
whether the exoneration/acquittal is on merits; where evidence which the
prosecution wanted to cite was led.
9. In the instant case it is important that the victim suffered fatal injuries
with a sharp edged weapon, which were not possible of being inflicted if the
assault from behind. It assumes importance to note that not only the motive
but the actual commission of the offence is disclosed by the victim in this
statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Surprisingly, the victim, his father and
other bystanders have turned hostile; but we need not be surprised for the
reason witnesses being suborned has become the rule and witnesses
deposing fearlessly is an exception. This answers the second contention
urged i.e. that the petitioner was acquitted at the trial.
10. The fourth contention that the petitioner is a truthful person having
voluntarily informed of he being an accused at a criminal trial while filling
up the enrolment form has been noted and rejected by the Supreme Court
with the observations that this would simply amount to earning a brownie
point.
11. As regards the plea that the petitioner was aged 19 years when the
incident took place, there may be some merit that a person committing an
act of indiscretion at a young age should be considered and looked at with
benevolent eyes, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Supreme Court
has laid emphasis on discipline in the police force and that the candidate
wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude, he
must have impeccable character and integrity and that persons having
criminal antecedents do not fit in this category.
12. We note that one out of the two cases dealt by the Supreme Court
pertained to an offence of attempt to murder i.e. Section 307 IPC; as is the
instant case.
13. That apart, it is not in the province of the Writ Court to re-appreciate
the facts. As long as the Screening Committee constituted by the
Commissioner of Police has looked into of the relevant facts, and in cases of
acquittal at criminal trials, the nature and circumstances of the acquittal, the
gravity of the offence alleged, the heinousness of the act, that would be
sufficient to uphold a decision of the kind.
14. We accordingly affirm the view taken by the Tribunal that the
decision of the Commissioner Police not to give employment as a Constable
(Driver) to the petitioner is correct.
15. The writ petition is dismissed.
16. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(V. KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
JULY 24, 2013
mamta
