Delhi High Court
Shri Bhagwan vs Union Of India & Ors. on 9 May, 2013
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: May 09, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 2996/2013
SHRI BHAGWAN ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Dheeraj Gupta, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Zubeda Begum, Advocate with
Ms.Sana Ansari, Advocate for R-2 to
R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)
1. Finding errors of translation while reproducing the testimony of
the witnesses of the department, we have perused the record of inquiry.
2. The charge against the petitioner was that he along with co-
accused HC Manjeet Singh and HC Dharam Pal were in a PCR van which
was being driven by the petitioner and the other two police personnel were
the van incharge and the gunman. In the intervening night of February 21-
22, 1995 they chased a tempo bearing No.MP-09 D-2079 and extorted `50/-
from the driver of the tempo whose name was Vinod Kumar and on his
refusal to pay they misbehaved with him. Insp.Balwant Singh the night
checking officer happened to pass by and made a report. The charge has
been held proved.
3. Since at a departmental inquiry the applicable norm of
credibility of evidence is with reference to its probative value and as a writ
court we are not to re-appreciate the evidence as we would do as a court of
appeal, it would be sufficient for us to note that Vinod Kumar the driver of
the tempo appeared at the inquiry as PW-5. He stated that 2/3 months back
a blue coloured gypsy stopped him and the occupants of the gypsy started
harassing him. In the meantime a fat officer arrived and asked him to write
down the complaint, which he did. The same was Ex.PW-2/B.
4. We have perused the statement of Vinod Kumar. He was cross
examined. He stated that the fat officer arrived when the blue coloured
gypsy had intercepted him and was present. To question No.3 whether all
police officers who were occupants of the gypsy were present when the
inquiry was on, he stated that not all were present.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to urge that the
complainant had not identified the petitioner or any other police officer who
statedly attempted to extort money from him.
6. We are not concerned with a criminal trial and the strict
requirement of witnesses identifying accused in what is known as dock
identification.
7. That apart, it is useless to take the logic any further because we
have the testimony of Insp.Balwant Singh who appeared as PW-2. He has
proved the complaint received by him at the spot by Vinod Kumar as
Ex.PW-2/B and his report submitted the same night as Ex.PW-2/C. Both
exhibits name the petitioner, the PCR van incharge and the gunman by
name. They are contemporaneous documents.
8. We note that the original application filed by the petitioner had
been earlier on dismissed by the Tribunal on November 13, 2000 but the
order was set aside by this Court on October 27, 2009 noting that the
entirety of the evidence was not considered by the Tribunal, and suffice
would it be for us to state that even at that stage, as in the instant stage, gross
translation errors resulting in wrong impressions being created with respect
to the testimony of the witnesses appears to have misled the Division Bench
to remand the matter.
9. Be that as it may, at the remanded stage vide impugned
decision dated December 06, 2010 the Tribunal has exhaustively
reconsidered the evidence and has found that the indictment stands.
10. Since a specialized Tribunal has reconsidered the entire
evidence, it would be enough for us to highlight the testimony of PW-2 and
PW-5.
11. The writ petition is dismissed in limine but without any orders
as to costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(V. KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
MAY 09, 2013
mamta
