Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Singh Alias Shoki vs State Of Punjab And Others on 21 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
135
CWP-26602-2022 (O&M).
Date of Decision: 21.11.2022.
Ravinder Singh alias Shoki
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: Ms. Sarika Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J (ORAL)
The present writ petition has been filed under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking issuance of a writ in
the nature of mandamus directing respondent State of Punjab to take
legal and departmental action against respondents No.7 to 11 in terms of
Investigation Report (Annexure P-4) submitted by the Special
Investigation Team (hereinafter referred to as 'SIT') comprising of three
senior IPS officers pursuant to the directions given by this Court vide
order dated 23.09.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed in CRM-M-15299 of
2013.
1 of 6
CWP-26602-2022 (O&M) - 2-
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends
that the petitioner was forcibly taken away from his office on
12.04.2013 at about 6:00 P.M. by Inspector Sulakhan Singh -
respondent No.7 and was thereafter falsely implicated in FIR No.43
dated 12.04.2013, under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'NDPS Act,
1985') registered at Police Station, City Hoshiarpur. He contends that
there was no recovery effected from the petitioner at the spot and the
raiding party themselves was carrying a polythene containing intoxicant
powder weighing 525 grams of heroin which was eventually allegedly
to have been recovered from the petitioner. It is averred that there is a
CCTV camera installed inside and outside the shop of the petitioner and
the entire incident was duly captured in the said CCTV camera.
Aggrieved of the false implication, the petitioner had approached
this Court by means of filing of CRM-M-15299 of 2013 for seeking
issuance of directions to the respondent-State to conduct independent
judicial inquiry or to send the investigation of the matter to the CBI
since the respondent police officials had not only falsely implicated the
petitioner but also embezzled/mis-appropriated an amount of Rs.4 lacs
lying in the shop of the petitioner. The aforesaid petition was disposed
of vide judgment dated 23.09.2013 wherein this Court directed that the
investigation of the case be conducted by a Special Investigation Team
to be headed by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Inspector
General of Police or the Senior Superintendent of Police, an IPS officer,
not from State of Punjab. The investigation was directed to be
2 of 6
CWP-26602-2022 (O&M) - 3-
conducted by the SIT under the direct supervision of the Director
General of Police (Vigilance), Punjab and the same was to be concluded
within a period of 03 months. The proceedings against the petitioner
were also ordered to remain stayed till the conclusion of the
investigation. It was also observed that further action in the matter
would follow on the basis of the report submitted by the SIT.
Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment dated 23.09.2013, the SIT
submitted its report on 26.06.2014. Relevant conclusions of the said
report read as under:-
"Findings of SIT
(i) From the examination of the CCTV footage and the
statements of the eye witnesses presented by the petitioner, it
seems that the petitioner was apprehended by police from the
RFC office. He was found entering the RFC office, while talking
casually on his phone. He was not accompanied by any person or
police official. The body language of the petitioner did not
indicate that he was taken into custody by police or he was trying
to flee from the spot.
(ii) When the petitioner was apprehended by Insp. Sulakhan
Singh and H.C Charanjit Singh, there seems to be no bag or
anything with him except his mobile.
(iii) The version of police seems to be an afterthought to justify
the recording in the CCTV footage. The police could not present
any eye witnesses to justify their version. Some witnesses were
produced by police during the investigation, who were not
present when recovery was made by the police. They only stated
that the petitioner is a bad character and is into illegal activities.
They did not know the petitioner personally.
(iv) The recovery of heroin was not made as per the provisions
of section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985 regarding the conditions under
which search of person shall be conducted. The place of recovery
3 of 6
CWP-26602-2022 (O&M) - 4-
shown by the police is at Bahadurpur Gate, Hoshiarpur, which is
close to CIA Staff and approximately 1.5 kms. away from SSP,
Hoshiarpur office and any GO/DSP could have reached the spot
immediately. The recovery of contraband appears to be
suspicious considering the above circumstances.
v) Regarding the search of the premises conducted by ASI
Narinderpal Singh, H.C Harbans Singh, H.C. Satpal Singh and
H.C. Manjit Singh in the presence of Lakhvir Singh S/o Dharam
Singh, Rajinder Kumar S/o Barfi Ram, it is obvious from the
CCTV footage that it took almost 10 minutes to count the money.
recovered from the drawer and the almirah lying in the
petitioner's shop, and from this fact, it seems that the amount of
money recovered from the petitioner's RFC office may be larger
than Rs. 58,470. Besides, the recovery memo of the same was not
prepared properly. However, petitioner's claim of borrowing Rs.
4.00 lacs from his friend Ashok Jandial could not be established
from the CCTV footage. Further, the contents of packet which
was kept near the feet of ASI Narinderpal Singh could not be
ascertained. No definite finding could be given about the
allegations of misappropriation of amount of Rs. Four lacs."
After filing of the report by the SIT, various discrepancies were
noticed in the investigation conducted by the officials including the fact
that the petitioner was apprehended from his shop and that at the time
when the petitioner was apprehended, he was not carrying any bag or
anything with him except his mobile phone. The police also could not
produce any eye-witness to justify their version and only stated that the
petitioner is of a bad character and is involved in illegal activities.
Further, the recovery of the contraband was also not made as per the
provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and the place of
4 of 6
CWP-26602-2022 (O&M) - 5-
recovery was shown by the police at Bahadurpur Gate, Hoshiarpur,
which was close to the CIA staff and no Gazetted Officer or DSP was
called at the spot. As far as, the fact pertaining to notes was noticed no
definite finding was returned regarding the misappropriation of the
amount of Rs.4 lacs.
In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the SIT, an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner in
CRM-M-15299 of 2013 for seeking direction to the respondents to take
action against the guilty persons in the light of the report. The aforesaid
application, however, had been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to
the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative remedies in accordance
with law.
In the meanwhile, since the charge-sheet had already been filed
by the respondent State, Criminal Revision No.2620 of 2013 was also
preferred by the petitioner wherein further proceedings before the trial
Court stood stayed. A separate representation was submitted by the
petitioner to the Director General of Police, Punjab, pursuant to the
order passed in CRM No.41083 of 2017 dated 01.02.2019 and in the
aforesaid representation submitted by the petitioner to the Director
General of Police, Punjab (Annexure P-9), the petitioner had sought
action against the guilty police officials.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that her grievance is
on account of inaction by the respondent police officials against the
private respondents who were inducted by the SIT. She further contends
that she would be satisfied, at this juncture, in case the Director General
5 of 6
CWP-26602-2022 (O&M) - 6-
of Police, Punjab, is directed to look into the grievances espoused by the
petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order thereupon after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties.
Notice of the present petition is accepted by the learned State
counsel
In view of the order which this Court proposes to pass, the
necessity of effecting service upon respondents No.7 to 11, is dispensed
with, at this stage.
Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the present
petition being disposed of by directing the Director General of Police,
Punjab, to look into the grievances espoused by the petitioner and pass a
reasoned and speaking order thereupon after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the respective parties.
Accordingly, with the consent of the parties and without
commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed
of directing respondent No.2 - The Director General of Police, Punjab,
to look into the grievances espoused by the petitioner in the
representation (Annexure P-9) and to pass a reasoned and speaking
order thereupon within a period of 04 months of the receipt of certified
copy of this order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
respective parties.
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.
November 21, 2022 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
raj arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
