Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pushpraj Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 10 March, 2006
ORDER Abhay M. Naik, J.
1. Facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared in the selection test for recruitment on the post of constable. He was required to appear in physical test and written examination, He was also required to fill up a form contained in Annexure-R/2 which was filled up on 6.4.1993. The petitioner was selected as revealed in Annexure-P/2 dated 27.3.1993. Thereafter, formalities were completed which included filling up of the form contained in Annexure-R/2 dated 6.4.1993.
2. Other persons who appeared with the petitioner in the said recruitment process, were appointed as constables whereas the name of the petitioner was omitted. The petitioner made a representation vide Annexure-P/4 when he was informed by the Superintendent of Police, Chhntarpur that during verification of character, the name of the petitioner was found to have figured as accused person in Crime No. 70/1993. Accordingly, the appointment was denied to the petitioner. It will not be out of place to mention here that trial of the case relating to Crime No. 70/1993 concluded in acquittal on 26.9.2002 contained in Annexure-P/5. In the light of the same, the petitioner further made representation and made a prayer for issuance of appointment order. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 24.6.2003 contained in Annexure-P/1, it was informed that the petitioner did not furnish correct information in Annexure-R/2 and therefore he was disqualified.
3. It is contended by Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the petitioner that nothing has been suppressed, in Annexure-R/2 and the impugned order contained in Annexure-P/1 is not sustainable in law being illegal and arbitrary.
4. Shri Om Namdeo, learned Government Advocate, submitted that F.I.R. against the petitioner under Sections 147, 148, 353, 149, 307 of I.P.C. was lodged on 12.3.1993 which was prior to filling up of the form on 6.4.1993. He submitted that the petitioner has suppressed this fact and since the Criminal case was already registered against the petitioner, appointment to him has rightly been denied vide Annexure-P/1.
5. Considered the submissions and perused the record.
It is important to take note of the requisites of paragraph 12(k) of Annexure-R/2 which requires an applicant to furnish the information in the following manner:
(1) Whether you have been ever arrested?
(2) Whether you have been ever prosecuted?
(3) Whether you have been ever confined?
(4) Whether any bond has ever been obtained from you?
(5) Whether you have been imposed with a penalty?
(6) Whether you have been convicted second time for any offence?
(7) Whether you have been prohibited from appearing in selection through the examination by Public Service Commission and whether you have been found guilty?
(8) Whether you have been prohibited from appearing in the examination conducted by any University or any Educational Authority/Institution?
(9) Whether you have been expelled from any University or Educational Authority/Institution?
In the aforesaid column, the petitioner mentioned that he has not been prosecuted. Now it is to be seen whether it amounts to any kind of suppression so as to make the petitioner disentitled to the post of constable. The relevant dates go to show that on 12.3.1993, a F.I.R. was lodged against certain persons including the petitioner. In Col.12 (k), it may be seen that the petitioner while filling up coi.12(k) was not required to give any information as to whether, any F.I.R. is lodged against him or any offence is registered against him.
6. This Court is required to see whether the prosecution may be said to have commenced merely on lodging of F.I.R. and the petitioner can be said to have made a mis-statement about absence of prosecution inspite of the F.I.R. having been lodged against him on 12,3.1993. The word "prosecution" is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. F.I.R. is lodged in cognizable cases under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as under:
Section 154: Information in cognizable cases.- (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Stale Government may prescribe in this behalf.
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under Sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any persons aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in Sub-section (!) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.
7. In pursuance of F.I.R., investigation is made in exorcise of various powers conferred under law. Thus, when F.I.R. is lodged it is merely an investigation which commences and not the prosecution/trial. I may successfully refer to paragraph 7 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Ors. v. K. Ratnagiri reported as .
The word "prosecution" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as under:
"Prosecution" - A criminal action; a proceeding instituted and carried on by due course of law, before a competent tribunal, for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of a person charged with crime.
8. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India mandates that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. The word 'prosecution' in this context means an initiation or starting of proceedings of a criminal nature before a Court of law or a judicial tribunal in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the statute which creates the offence and regulates the punishment. Lodging of F.I.R. with the police may although ultimately lead to a prosecution before the Court but it cannot be Itself treated as a prosecution even for the purpose of the present case.
9. Learned Government Advocate has failed to establish from the material on record that challan was put up against the petitioner before a court of law and the petitioner was required to defend himself against the charges made in the F.I.R. Long back it was held by Calcutta High Court in the case of Santiram Mandal v. Emperor AIR 1929 Calcutta 229 that the prosecution of a person does not commence till he is summoned to answer a complaint. In the present case, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner was served with a summon or warrant in any criminal case on or before 6.4.1993 when he filled up the form contained in Annexure R-2.
10. Thus, it can safely be held that merely lodging of F.I.R. does not give rise to commencement of prosecution which obviously commences from the date the challan is put up before the concerning Magistrate in pursuance of the F.I.R.... In view of the specific query made in Annexure-R/2 the petitioner was required merely to furnish information whether there was any prosecution against him and was not required to furnish the information about any F.I.R. having been lodged against him. Moreover, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner was aware on 6.4.1993 about the F.I.R. having been already lodged against him on 12.3.1993.
11. Shri Om Namdeo, learned Government Advocate, has not been able to demonstrate from the document on record that the prosecution had commenced on or before 6.4.1993. The petitioner has submitted an affidavit before this Court mentioning clearly that on 25.5.1993 he went to Police Station, Nowgong when he was informed that he was implicated in the Criminal Case. Thereafter, an application for anticipatory bail was submitted before the Sessions Court, Chhatarpur which was rejected on 27.5.1993. Anticipatory bail was ultimately granted by this Court on 7.8.1993 vide Annexure-P/3. Thus, there is no iota on record to show that the prosecution had commenced on or before 6.4.1993 and further that the petitioner was aware of the same.
12. Shri Om Namdeo, learned Government Advocate, relying upon the decision in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav reported as submitted that the petitioner having suppressed the factum of F.I.R. was rightly denied the appointment on the post of constable vide Annexure-P/1.
13. It may be seen from the aforesaid discussion that the petitioner is not found to have suppressed any information which was required to be furnished vide col. 12(k) of Annexure-R/2. In this view of the matter, the impugned order contained in Annexure-P/1 is totally illegal and arbitrary and the same is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for issuance of appointment order ignoring Annexure-P/1. No order as to costs.