Delhi District Court
Daya Singh Lahoria vs . State on 14 November, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURINDER S. RATHI:ASJ:02:
CENTRAL: ROOM NO.32:TIS HAZARI COURTS :DELHI
ID No. 02401R0475392011
CR no.91/2011
Daya Singh Lahoria Vs. State
Daya Singh Lahoria
(presently confined in Jail No.2,
Tihar, New Delhi). .........Revisionist / UTP
Vs.
State .......Respondent
Revision petition against the order dated 01.10.2011 Date of Institution : 13.10.2011 Date of final hearing : 14.11.2011 Date of final order : 14.11.2011 ORDER ON REVISION
1. By this order I shall dispose off revision preferred by Under Trial Prisiioner Daya Singh Lahoria against the order of Ld. CMM dated 1.10.2011 rd whereby on an application of Inspector Dinesh Kumar of 3 Btln. , order for using handcuff and fetters were passed qua the revisionist while producing him before Ld. ASJ in Ludhiana, Punjab on 4.10.2011 & 5.10.2011.
2. I have heard arguments of Ld. Counsel Sh. Vikas Padora advocate for revisionist and Ld. Addl. PP Sh. G.S.Guraya for State and DCP Sh.
st Braham Singh of 1 Btln. I have also carefully perused the entire revision file, original impugned order and replies filed by police officials.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that revisionist Daya page 1/6 of Revision Daya Singh Lahoaria vs. State dated 14.11.2011 2 Singh Lahoria is UTP in a case FIR No.77/07 Ps Spl. Cell before Sh. M.R. Sethi, Ld. ASJ (West ) , Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. He is also a convict in three cases including a case of kidnapping for ransom and is under going life sentence. As per police, he is alleged to be a member of Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF), a terrorist organisation as per statutory schedule. He was supposed to be produced before Ld. Sessions Court at Ludhiana on 4.10.2011 and 5.10.2011. Acting on some intelligence input qua anticipated attempt to escape from custody, Inspector Dinesh Kr. moved an application before Ld. CMM, Delhi on 1.10.2011 requesting for using fetter and handcuff on the revisionist. This application also contained a plea that revisionist/UTP Daya Singh Lahoria is a convict in Sh. Beant Singh's Murder case, Late CM of Punjab. Upon considering this application, Ld.CMM vide impugned order dated 1.10.2011 allowed usage of handcuff and fetters.
4. Aggrieved by this order, the revision in hand was preferred by the UTP / Revisionist on the plea that he was never charge sheeted in Beant Singh's murder case and is not a convict in that case as sought to be made out in the application dated 1.10.2011. During the course of hearing he even filed page 2/6 of Revision Daya Singh Lahoaria vs. State dated 14.11.2011 3 an unattested affidavit in support of this plea.
5. Written reply was sought from applicant Inspector Dinesh Kumar who pleaded personal ignorance about this fact and simply stated that he mentioned UTP Daya as convict of Beant Singh's Murder case on the basis rd of an internal order by DCP 3 Btln.
rd
6. When a response was sought from DCP 3 Btln. Sh. Parvez Ahmad qua this fact, in his reply dated 1.11.11, DCP conceded that the fact of mentioning revisionist Daya Singh Lahoria as convict in Beant Singh's murder case in their internal order is incorrect. Sh. Ahmad simply stated that while issuing this arrangement order , he simply copy pasted the order of his predecessor Sh. Braham Singh, DCP dated 29.4.2011wherein it is so mentioned.
rd
7. In his separate reply filed by the then DCP of 3 Btln. Sh. Braham Singh, it is mentioned that UTP Daya is not a convict in Beant Singh's Murder Case and that this fact has been inadvertently incorporated wrongly in so far earlier his outstation arrangements were being made along with arrangements of Jagtar Singh Hawara who is convict in Beant Singh's murder case . Court is apprised that when separate arrangement order page 3/6 of Revision Daya Singh Lahoaria vs. State dated 14.11.2011 4 was passed qua the revisionist the words " Beant Singh's Murder case"
could not be removed from the arrangement order. Hence the mistake.
8. As far as authority & jurisdiction of Ld. CMM to pass order of usage of handcuff and fetter is concerned, there is no doubt that such order can be passed by Ld. CMM. I find no strength in the plea of Ld. Counsel for revisionist that Ld. CMM could not have entertained the application and only Sh. M.r.Sethi, Ld. ASJ could have considered it being a Trial Court of rd UTP. It is expected of police officials of 3 Btln. that they should share only correct fact with the court while seeking such order. Although only a plea of clerical error has been taken but this does not absolve the state of its duty to exercise fairness as per Article 21 of Constitution of India and as laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, due care and caution in approaching the court on the such like sensitive matters. Having said this , there is nothing on record to show that the above incorrect fact was deliberately mentioned by police or any malafide can be attached to the same in any manner.
9. Since impugned order of Ld.CMM dated 1.10.2011 already stands acted upon and complied, the prayer of revisionist qua setting it aside is being page 4/6 of Revision Daya Singh Lahoaria vs. State dated 14.11.2011 5 allowed in the notional sense of it so that it is not treated as a precedent by the State in any manner. In case state is desirous of requesting any further security enhancement measure qua revisionist, no reference to this order shall be made and same shall be sought on the merits of the fresh application alone.
10.Further more impugned order reveals that it was not passed in the immediate presence of the accused / UTP. As per order neither UTP was personally present nor any opportunity of being heard was given to him through his counsel. It is imperative on the part of the judicial courts to grant an opportunity of being heard in such like matters to the UTP qua whom such like orders are being passed in live with principle of Natural Justice.
11.As far as relief No.2 qua criminal action against Inspector Dinesh Kumar for intentionally misleading the Court is concerned, I find not ground for the same, in so far as there is nothing on record to show that he bears any negative grudge or prejudice against the revisionist / UTP. The action taken by Inspector Dinesh Kumar was actuated by an intelligence input and whatever was done by him was so done in discharge of his official duty.
page 5/6 of Revision Daya Singh Lahoaria vs. State dated 14.11.2011 6 rd However, DCP 3 Btln., is directed to issue a corrigendum order qua correction of aforesaid factual mistake within a week from today under intimation to this Court, specifically stating that UTP Daya Singh Lahoriya is not convict in Baent Singh's murder case. Copy of this corrigendum shall be circulated as per previous arrangement addresses. One copy of the same be supplied to the revisionist as well. As far as prayer of grant of compensation is concerned, the above circumstances do not warrant the same.
12.Revision petition accordingly stands disposed off. Revision file be sent to RR. At request , copy of this order be given dasti to the Ld. Counsel for revisionist. TCR be sent back with copy of this order. ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED IN OPEN COURT ON : 14.11.2011 (SURINDER S. RATHI) Addl. Sessions Judge02 Central : Delhi page 6/6 of Revision Daya Singh Lahoaria vs. State dated 14.11.2011