Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Gajender Singh on 21 February, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; FTC : E COURT: SPL COURT,
SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989, SHAHDARA: KARKARDOOMA COURT:
DELHI.
SESSIONS CASE No.08/2015
Unique Case ID No.801/2016
FIR No. 1716/2014
U/S: 506 IPC & 3 (1) (ix) (x) SC/ST (POA) Act 1989
P.S: Seema Puri
State Versus 1. Gajender Singh
S/o. Sh. Harish Chand
R/o. Flat No.203, Triveni Nest
Apartment, Shri Radhey Shyam
Park, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P.
Permanent R/o. Vill. Rajpur, PO
Farukh Nagar, Distt, Ghaziabad, U.P.
Date of Institution : 20.02.2015
Date of Arguments : 23.01.2018
Date of Judgment : 21.02.2018
____________________________________________________________
FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 1 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh
J U D G M E N T
Case of Prosecution
1.On 02.12.2014, a complaint was received at PS Seema Puri given by the complainant Sh. Ram Chander Haldar. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant, who belongs to SC Community, was working as Mechanic at Seema Puri Depot. Gajender Singh, who belongs to Swarn Caste was also working there on the post of Foreman, used to demand Rs.5,000/ per month from him as bribe and on his refusal, would always utter castiest remark, hurl abuses and also threaten to kill him. Gajender Singh used to mark forged attendance of his cousin Charan Singh Billa, Assistant Fitter regarding which he complained to his senior Foreman Sh. Ajayveer Prakash and Rajender Prakash Sharma. Gajender Singh came to know about this and on 23.11.2012, Gajender Singh in connivance with Rajpal Singh body fitter quarreled with him, gave him beatings, hurled abuses, uttered castiest remarks and also threatened to kill him as well as made a false complaint against him, on which Depot Manager without conducting any enquiry, suspended him on 26.11.2012. Gajender Singh also got entered adverse remarks in his ACR so that he may not get promotion, due to which he suffered economic, mental and social loss. He had earlier also given complaint to Chairman SC Commission on 05.06.2013 and also made complaints to Transport Minister and Chairman ____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 2 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh but no action was taken. He moved applications for his transfer, however, in order to pressurise him, Gajender Singh blocked his promotion. Gajender Singh uttered castiest remarks to him in the presence of other officials and said "Tum neech chude chamar ho, tumhe jitne juty marre jay utna hi thoda hai, tum to jute ke hi yaar ho". When he asked Gajender Singh not to abuse him by raising his finger, Gajender Singh twisted little finger of his right hand and pushed him from his office. On the basis of this complaint, case was registered u/s. 506 IPC & 3 (ix), 3 (x) of SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as SC/ST Act) and copy of FIR alongwith original rukka was sent to ACP Ram Chander for further investigation. Further investigation was carried out and after completing other necessary formalities, charge sheet was filed.
Charge framed against the accused
2. Charge under section section 3 (1) (ix) & 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 was framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Witnesses examined
3. To prove its case, prosecution examined total 13 witnesses. The brief summary of deposition of prosecution witnesses is as under:
____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 3 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh
4. PW1 HC Girdhari was the duty officer and had registered the FIR on the basis of rukka given by SHO. The copy of FIR is Ex.PW1/B and the endorsement on rukka made by the witness to this effect is Ex.PW1/A.
5. PW2 Sh. Ramchandra Haldar is the complainant. He deposed that in the year 2012, he was working as Mechanic at Seema Puri, DTC Bus Depot and belongs to SC Community. He further deposed that accused Gajendra Singh was working as foreman in Seemapuri Depot and due to age factor, accused used to feel as if he was not able to perform his duty properly and therefore, used to demand bribe from him. He made oral complaint against the accused to Senior Foreman Ajaybir Prakash and Asstt. Foreman Rajender Prasad Sharma and when accused came to know about such complaint, he cooked up a false case and got him suspended on 26.11.2012. PW2 further deposed that on 23.11.2012 his duty hours were from 1 pm to 9 pm at Seema Puri Depot and on that day Sh. Rajender Prasad Sharma, Incharge assigned him the work of repair of a Bus and while he was proceedings with two Assistants Fitters for the repair of the Bus, he was called by accused Gajendra through a Bench Fitter. He deposed that when he reached at the office of accused, who was present in his office with Rajpal Fitter, Jaipal Blacksmith and Asstt. Foreman Rajender Prasad told him that he would assign him the work for that day and asked him to ____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 4 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh repair some other vehicle/bus. As per PW2, he told accused that he would not be able to completely finish the work of repair of that vehicle, upon which accused got agitated and abused him and hurled castiest remarks i.e Chura, Chamar, neech and said " Jitne jute mare jaye kam hai ye kaam nahi karte." PW2 further deposed that when he raised his finger and asked accused not to abuse him, accused twisted the finger of his right hand and pushed him outside the office. Thereafter, Rajpal took him in the store, where he was offered water by one lady employee and matter was pacified. He further deposed that he was suspended on 26.11.2012 by fabricating the report dt. 23.11.2012 and that accused got recorded adverse remarks in his ACR and blocked his promotion and also threatened to kill him. He deposed that he made representation against adverse entry in his ACR to his senior officers as due to those adverse remarks, his name was not in the promotion list. He deposed that he made first complaint to Senior Officers of the DTC on 18.01.2013 and on 02.12.2014 he had gone to P.S Seema Puri, where he made complaint Ex.PW2/A on the basis of which FIR was registered. He also proved his complaint dt. 18.01.2013 made to Depot Manager as Ex.PW2/B and complaint made to SC/ST Commission as Ex.PW2/C. In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel he confirmed that as a mechanic, his duty was to repair the buses. He denied the suggestion that he had refused to repair the gear box of the bus as directed by accused and volunteered that repair was not possible because ____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 5 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh there was no spare parts available. He admitted that on 23.11.2012 accused was the Incharge of General Shift but denied that Incharge General Shift can entrust any task to any of the mechanics. He further confirmed that in his complaint Ex.PW2/B dt. 18.01.2013, he did not mention that accused had made any castiest remarks against him and volunteered that at that time he was not in right frame of mind. To a specific question, he deposed that on 16.07.2013, he also made a complaint Ex.PW2/D to Chairman DTC but does not remember whether he made mention of castiest words uttered by accused in that complaint or not. He further confirmed that he was charge sheeted by department and that Ex.PW2/D2 is the copy of reply filed by him and volunteered that there was no mention of abusive language in the chargesheet and therefore, he did not mention the fact of utterance of castiest remarks by accused, in his reply. He further confirmed that he was censured by the department on the basis of enquiry report Ex. PW2/D3. He further deposed that he did not mention in his complaint Ex.PW2/A that accused had twisted his finger and volunteered that he did not mention this fact as he had not suffered any major injury.
6. PW3 is Sh. Rajender Prasad, who on 23.11.2012 was working as Assistant Foreman at Seemapuri DTC Bus Depot from 7.30 am to 4 pm. He deposed that on 23.11.2012, service group gave him a bus and he handed over the same to Ram Chander for repair at about 1.30 pm and thereafter, he went to the Foreman Office, where accused Gajendra Singh ____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 6 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh was sitting, who asked him whether the heavy group has reported and he told him that he will give them urgent work. He further deposed that accused asked Bench Fitter Vinod Kumar to call Ram Chander and then he left from there to take water and after about 10 minutes when he came back, he found that accused Gajendra Singh and Ram Chander were sitting opposite to each other and talking. He further deposed that Ram Chander told accused Gajendra that bench fitter leaves by 4 pm and therefore, in the absence of the bench fitter, the work of the vehicle could not be completed, on hearing which accused got angry and abused Ram Chander telling him that he was not willing to do the work, on which Ram Chander raised his finger and asked the accused not to abuse him. Thereupon, accused twisted the finger of Ram Chander.
In his crossexamination, he deposed that no medical examination of Ram Chander was conducted and to a specific question, he deposed that he cannot admit or deny the suggestion that accused Gajendra Singh was entrusted with the task of Manager Mechanic with authority to assign any work to mechanics working at the workshop.
7. PW4 is Sh. Subhash, who on 23.11.2012 was posted as Depot Manager Seema Puri. He deposed that on 26.11.2012, he received a report from accused that Ram Chander Haldar, Mechanic has refused to perform the work assigned to him and misbehaved with him. He deposed that keeping in view the gravity of the complaint, Ram Chander Haldar was ____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 7 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh placed under suspension by him. He further deposed that enquiry was conducted and Ram Chander was found partially guilty and therefore, he was awarded penalty of censure by him. He deposed that Ram Chander also made complaint Ex.PW2/B against the accused, which was seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW4/A. In his crossexamination, he confirmed that accused was authorised to work as a Manager Mechanical vide office order dt. 01.11.2012 Ex.PW4/D1 and that Manager Mechanical is over all Incharge of all the shifts of the mechanics.
8. PW5 is Sh. Jai Pal Singh, who on 23.11.2012 was working as Assistant Blacksmith at Seemapuri Depot of DTC. He deposed that at about 1.30 pm, accused asked him to call Ram Chander Mechanic. He called Ram Chander and then started doing his work. He deposed that some hot words were exchanged between accused Gajendra and Ram Chander and they got them separated and patched up the matter. He further deposed that no castiest abuse or remarks were made by accused in his presence.
9. PW6 Ct. Naveen Kumar brought the order No. 3031932 dt. 02.12.2014 and proved the same as Ex.PW6/A.
10. PW7 Sh. Inder Pal Singh deposed that on 23.12.2012, he was posted at Seema Puri, DTC Bus Depot and was working as Assistant ____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 8 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh Fitter. He deposed that on that day at about 1.30 pm, he heard some noise of quarrel coming from workshop office. Accused was inside the office and complainant Ram Chander was in the gallery, outside the office and was crying. He deposed that accused belongs to Gujjar Caste.
11. PW8 SI Kapil Kumar joined the investigation of this case with ACP Ram Chander on 10.12.2014 and they went to DTC Depot, Seemapuri. He deposed that IO examined witnesses and Depot Manager Subhash had handed over several documents i.e complaints made by Ramchander Haldar, which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A.
12. PW9 is Inspector C.R.Meena, who on 02.12.2014 was working as SHO. He deposed that on that day present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint and rukka and he had issued a certificate u/s. 65B of Evidence Act, Ex.PW9/A.
13. PW10 Sh. Ajayveer Prakash deposed that from year 2011 to May 2013, he was working as Foreman in Seema Puri Depot and accused Gajender was also working as Foreman while complainant Ram Chander was working as mechanic in the said depot. He deposed that accused got him transferred at Noida as the Chief General Manager and Senior Manager were relatives of the accused and that accused used abusive language while ____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 9 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh working in the depot and was running a racket of exchanging the oil etc. He further deposed that accused got his ACR below than the bench mark and also got him beaten from his followers and brothers. He further deposed that in his presence, no incident of passing caste remarks upon the complainant took place as he was on night duty.
In his crossexamination, he confirmed that he did not make any complaint to police against the corruption in the DTC.
14. PW11 is ACP Ram Chander, DIU, NorthEast. He deposed that on 10.12.2014, he went to DTC Bus Depot, where at the instance of complainant, he prepared site plan Ex.PW11/B. He proved the various steps taken during investigation and memos prepared alongwith verification of caste certificate of complainant Ex.PW11/C. In his crossexamination, he deposed that complainant was already in service, therefore, earlier they got the copy of his caste certificate from the record of DTC and same was got verified later on. He further confirmed that during investigation, it came to his knowledge that the castiest remarks to the complainant were not uttered by the accused in public view.
15. PW12 is Sh. Samir Kumar Sanyal, Retired Additional Inspector from Backward Classes Welfare, Rana Ghat, Development Block, Nadia, West Bengal, who in the year 2012 was working as Labour Welfare ____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 10 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh Officer. He deposed that he called up a report on caste certificate of Ram Chander Haldar from Village Pradhan and as per report, complainant was belonging to Scheduled Caste of subcaste 'Malo'. He proved his endorsement at point X to X on caste certificate Ex.PW11/C of complainant.
16. PW13 is SI Dinesh, who on the direction of ACP, DIU, NorthEast had gone to West Bengal and got verified the caste certificate of complainant.
Statement and Defence of accused
17. SA was recorded, wherein accused denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and pleaded innocence. Accused in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C stated that while he was working in DTC, he asked complainant and his other companion i.e Ajaybir to do the assigned work but they were not in habit of doing their work sincerely. Ram Chander refused to do the work assigned to him and raised hands upon him. He made complaint against him due to which he was suspended and thereafter complaints in preplanned manner were made against him. They also made complaints against him, on which enquiry was held and he was exonerated from the allegations. Accused examined one witness in his defence.
____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 11 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh
18. DW1 is Sh. Rajpal Singh, who deposed that on 23.11.2012, he was on duty as body fitter at Seemapuri DTC Bus Depot from 6 am to 2.30 pm. He deposed that on that day at about 2 pm, he alongwith accused was sitting in the foreman office and accused called Ram Chander Mechanic through one Jaipal Singh, Blacksmith, for doing job work of two buses. He deposed that Ram Chander came within two minutes and accused Gajendra Singh gave him work report but Ram Chander refused to accept the said report saying that he will not do the said job, on which Gajendra Singh asked him to do outside work i.e minor repair work of buses but Ram Chander refused to do that work also. Gajendra Singh told him that the work assigned to him was not his personal work, on which Ram Chander became irritated and started manhandling Gajendra. He deposed that they intervened and took out Ram Chander from the said room and that no castiest remarks were passed by Gajendra Singh foreman during the said incident.
Arguments and Conclusion
19. Arguments have been addressed by Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State assisted by Sh. Lalit Kumar Jha, Ld. Counsel for complainant as also by Sh. Harish Kumar, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused.
____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 12 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh
20. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that prosecution has proved that accused not only uttered castiest remarks but also made adverse remarks in the ACR of complainant due to which, he was not promoted in due course. It has been argued that the incident as well as presence of accused at the spot is not denied but it has been given a different colour. Ld. Addl. PP further argued that PW3 Sh. Rajender Prasad supported the complainant and DW1 is a tutored witness. Sh. Lalit Kumar Jha, Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that PW4 Subhash received the complaint on 26.11.2012 and on the same day he suspended the complainant. It has been argued that as admittedly there was a dispute between the complainant and the accused, principle of natural justice demands that accused should not have written the ACR of complainant. It is thus argued that accused by writing adverse remarks in the ACR of complainant committed offence u/s. 3 (1) (ix) of SC/ST Act.
21. Per contra, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that except statement of complainant, there is no evidence on record to show that accused used castiest remarks against the complainant in public view. It has been further argued that complainant was found guilty in the enquiry conducted by the department and his third appeal was allowed only on the mercy ground. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that there are no allegations that accused recorded false adverse remarks in the ACR of ____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 13 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh complainant. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that accused refused to do the duty assigned to him and later on deliberately gave it colour of castiest remarks.
22. The accused has been charged of having committed an offence u/s. 3 (1) (ix) & 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act. The section is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: Section 3. Punishment for offences of atrocities: (1) Whoever, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,
(ix) gives, any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;
(x) Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
23. Charge u/s. 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST Act : In order to attract the the ingredients of section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act, prosecution has to prove that accused being not a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe intentionally insulted or intimidated a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in any place within the public view. The fact that accused is not a member of scheduled caste is not in dispute.
PW7 Sh. Inder Pal Singh, who was working as Assistant Foreman in DTC Bus Depot deposed that accused belongs to Gujjar Caste. ____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 14 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh To prove that complainant belongs to scheduled caste, prosecution examined PW12 Sh. Sameer Kumar Sanyal, Retired Additional Inspector Backward Classes Welfare, Rana Ghat Development Block, Nadia, West Bengal, who deposed that caste certificate of complainant Ram Chander Haldar S/o. Rashu Haldar Ex.PW11/C was produced before him for the purpose of verification and as per verification report, complainant Ram Chander Haldar belongs to scheduled caste of subcaste 'Malo'.
24. Now, the question comes to decide whether accused used castiest remarks against complainant within the public view. In this regard apart from complainant PW2 Sh. Ram Chander Haldar, prosecution examined PW3 Sh. Rajender Prasad, Assistant Foreman & PW5 Sh. Jaipal Singh, Assistant Blacksmith, who were also present at the time of alleged incident. PW2 Ram Chander Haldar deposed that on 23.11.2012 his duty was between 1 pm to 9 pm at Seemapuri Depot and Sh. Rajender Prasad Sharma, his Incharge assigned him the work of repair of a Bus and while he was proceeding for the work, he was called by accused in his office. As per complainant, at about 2 pm, he went to the office of accused, where accused was present with Rajpal Fitter, Jaipal Blacksmith and Assistant Foreman Rajender Prasad. As per complainant, when he reached there, accused told him that he would assign him the work for that day and asked him to repair some other vehicle/Bus and at that time, complainant told him that he would not be able to completely finish the work of repair of that vehicle, ____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 15 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh upon which accused got agitated, abused him and hurled castiest remarks i.e Chura, Chamar, Neech and said " jitne jute mare jai kam hai ye kaam nahin karte." Complainant further deposed that he raised his finger and asked accused not to abuse him but accused twisted his right hand finger and pushed him outside the office. Thereafter, Rajpal took him in the store, where one lady employee Shakuntala served him a glass of water and the matter was pacified. PW3 Sh. Rajender Prasad also deposed about the incident stating that accused asked complainant to fit the gear box of some Bus, on which complainant told him that Bench Fitter leaves by 4 pm and therefore, in the absence of the Bench Fitter, the work of the vehicle could not be completed. He deposed that hearing this, accused got angry and abused complainant while saying that he was not willing to do the work but he did not say that accused used castiest remarks also against complainant. PW5 Sh. Jaipal Singh, who as per complainant was also present at the time of incident, deposed that no castiest abuse or remarks were made in his presence by the accused. Similarly, PW10 Sh. Ajay Veer Prakash deposed that in his presence no incident of passing castiest remarks against the complainant took place as he was on his night duty. Thus, none of the prosecution witness corroborated the version of the complainant that on 23.11.2012 when he was called by accused in his office, accused used castiest remarks against him.
Another eye witness of the incident as claimed by complainant was Rajpal Singh but he appeared as a defence witness and ____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 16 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh was examined as DW1. As per DW1 Sh. Rajpal Singh, on 23.11.2012, he was sitting with accused in the foreman office and were planning for next day's work and in the meanwhile, accused called the complainant through PW5 Sh. Jaipal Singh and gave him a work report but Ram Chander Haldar refused to accept the said work report while saying that he will not do the said work. As per DW1, thereupon, accused asked him that the work assigned to him was not his personal work, on which complainant Ram Chander Haldar became irritated and started manhandling accused Gajender. As per DW1 Sh. Rajpal Singh, no castiest remarks were passed by accused during the said incident. Further, the incident of using alleged castiest remarks by accused occurred on 23.11.2012 at 2 pm but as deposed by complainant, he made first complaint (Ex.PW2/B) against accused to senior officers of DTC on 18.01.2013 and even in that complaint, he did not mention that accused had made any castiest remarks against him and volunteered that at that time he was not in right frame of mind. Not only this, complainant PW2 Sh. Ram Chander Haldar confirmed in his cross examination that he did not mention of castiest words uttered by accused, in his complaint Ex.PW2/C dt. 05.06.2013 sent to SC/ST Commission. He further admitted that he did not mention the fact of utterance of castiest remarks by accused in reply to the chargesheet i.e Ex.PW2/D2 constituted on his complaints dt. 16.09.2014 or 18.09.2014. No explanation has come on record as to why complainant at the very first opportunity did not make a ____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 17 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh complaint with regard to alleged castiest remarks or mention the same in his complaints Ex.PW2/B & Ex.PW2/C and in Ex.PW2/D2.
PW11 ACP Ram Chander in his crossexamination deposed that during investigation, it has come to his knowledge that the castiest remarks to the complainant were not uttered by the accused in public view. Thus, prosecution has miserably failed to prove that on 23.11.2012 accused used castiest remarks against complainant and therefore, accused is acquitted of the charge u/s. 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act.
25. Charge u/s. 3 (1) (ix) of SC & ST Act : To attract the provisions of section 3 (1) (ix) of SC/ST Act, prosecution has to prove that accused gave any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby caused such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In this regard, case of prosecution is that accused recorded adverse entry in the ACR of complainant, due to which he did not get his promotion in due course. Complainant deposed that accused got entered an adverse remark in his ACR and blocked his promotion but those alleged adverse remarks have not been brought on record. It is also admitted by PW2/complainant that he was held guilty in the enquiry conducted against him and he was censured by department on the basis of enquiry report Ex.PW2/D3. PW4 Sh. Subhash, DTC Depot Manager also deposed that in the enquiry report ____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 18 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh Ram Chander Haldar was found partially guilty and therefore, he was awarded the penalty of censure by him.
26. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for complainant that recording of ACR of complainant by accused when there was admitted dispute between them, is against the principle of natural justice. Admittedly, complainant was working as a mechanic under the administrative control of the accused. The purpose of recording the ACR by a Superior Officer is to record the work and conduct of the subordinate official placed under him, therefore, unless it is shown that there was any deliberate or malafide remark, it cannot be said that recording of ACR of complainant by accused was against the principle of natural justice. It is not brought on record that complainant was apprehending any such adverse remark from the accused or that any representation to this effect was brought to the knowledge of Superior Officers of the department by him before writing ACR of the complainant by accused. Prosecution has not brought on record that complainant ever challenged the adverse remarks given by the accused in his ACR before any other Administrative Head of the Department or result thereof. In absence thereof, it cannot be said that accused gave any false or frivolous information while recording adverse remarks in the ACR of complainant to cause him any injury by the competent authority for accepting the remarks as given by accused, against complainant. Therefore, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to ____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 19 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh prove the charge u/s. 3 (1) (ix) SC/ST Act also against accused. In result accused stands acquitted. His bail bonds stands cancelled. Surety discharged. However, accused is directed to furnish bail bond u/s 437A Cr.P.C. for a period of six month in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety in the like amount within a period of one week from today, till then his previous bail bond is extended for the said purpose. File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA SANJEEV KUMAR Location:
MALHOTRA Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Announced in the open Date:
2018.02.21 16:21:32 court on 21.02.2018 +0530 SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; FTC : E COURT: SPL COURT, SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989, SHAHDARA: KARKARDOOMA COURT:
DELHI/21.02.2018 ____________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1716/14, PS. Seema Puri Page 20 of 20 St. Vs. Gajender Singh