Uttarakhand High Court
Harpal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 22 September, 2016
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.143 of 2016
(U/s 397/401 Cr.P.C.)
Harpal Singh
.... Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others
.... Respondents
Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate, for the revisionist.
Mr. G.S. Negi, Brief Holder, for the State/respondent nos.1 to 3.
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Brief Holder on behalf of the State, it transpires that pursuant to the first information report lodged on 15.5.2013 at 8.30 PM, a chargesheet was submitted on 28.11.2014 against co-accused Surat Singh @ Suraj for the offences of Section 7(13)(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter will be referred as 'the Act'), who, at the relevant time, was posted as a Forest Guard in Rajaji National Park, Haridwar.
An additional chargesheet was also submitted in the matter on 21.07.2015 against the present revisionist Harpal Singh viz. almost after nine months of the previous one. Mr. Harpal Singh, who, at that time, was posted as a Forester and was approaching the age of his retirement, was 2 challaned for the selfsame offences of the Act with the aid and assistance of Section 120-B IPC.
The backdrop of submission of these two charge-sheets seems to be that one Mr. Rajesh Giri was un-authorizedly running a shop in the area of national park and he was asked by Mr. Harpal, the Forester (revisionist, herein), to remove his vending place from the spot. While the all out efforts made against Mr. Giri could not yield any result, then Mr. Harpal Singh filed a complaint against the former in the Court of Magistrate under the appropriate sections of Forest Act and Wildlife Act, wherein, Mr. Surat Singh, Forest Guard and Mr. Samunder Singh, Beat Officer, were the witnesses.
While all this process, at the instance of Mr. Harpal, Forester, was underway, Mr. Rajesh Giri, as a measure of retaliation, moved a complaint in the Vigilance Department, with the averments, that he was being asked to part rupees twenty thousand as bribe. On this information, Mr. R.C. Kotnala, Inspector (Vigilance), raided the spot where he trapped Mr. Surat Singh @ Suraj while accepting rupees ten thousand as the illegal gratification. He was arrested at the spot and brought to the concerned office, where the first information report was formally reduced into writing on 15.5.2013 at 8:30 PM, as indicated above.
3This FIR culminated into the submission of chargesheet against Mr. Suraj Singh on 28.11.2014, but after lapse of almost nine months, an additional chargesheet was filed against the present revisionist Harpal Singh, Forester, as aforementioned.
By way of C482 petition No.1578 of 2015, Mr. Harpal Singh challenged the filing of charge- sheet, which sought quashing of the same, but the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.12.2015, directed the petitioner (Harpal Singh) to seek discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Dehradun. He was further directed to surrender before the court concerned and to move his bail application. In compliance of the said directions of the High Court, he surrendered and the bail was granted to him by the Trial Judge. But when the revisionist moved an application seeking his discharge u/s 227 of the Code along with his written arguments, then the learned Judge, instead of hearing and making any reasonable order, much less any order, simply wrote 'K.O.F.' in the order-sheet dated 10.02.2016, and proceeded to level the charge against the revisionist. Feeling aggrieved, this revision has been filed by Mr. Harpal Singh.
Having perused the impugned order passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance, I am of the 4 opinion that the attitude of the Judge concerned was completely in defiance of the directions issued by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, as afore- stated. When the revisionist Harpal Singh moved application seeking discharge, enclosing therewith his written arguments, then, at least, keeping in mind the directions of this Court, it was incumbent upon the Special Judge to pass a speaking and logical order instead of simply writing 'K.O.F.'. This is not an accepted abbreviation in any English literature. On what ground, the term 'K.O.F.' has been evolved, abbreviating the words 'Keep on File', is still to be considered.
However, this Court has considerably heard learned counsel for the revisionist.
It was vehemently argued that filing of chargesheet against the revisionist, for the same offences, with the aid of Section 120-B IPC, is simply a retaliating action to discourage him and further to take revenge from him for his action of filing complaint against Mr. Rajesh Giri under the appropriate sections of the Wildlife Act and Forest Act.
It was further argued that the money was never demanded from Mr. Rajesh Giri, rather, he was simply asked to remove his commercial establishment from the forest area. Further, revisionist was never arrested by any trap party, 5 however, after a lapse of months together, he has been implicated and framed on the premise that his name has also been highlighted by co-accused Surat Singh, Forest Guard. Even, the learned Judge of the Anti-Corruption, while granting bail to Mr. Surat Singh, has observed that no element of demanding any gratification, on the part of accused, is available on the record.
That apart, attention of this Court has also been drawn towards the fact that the complainant Rajesh Giri is a hardened criminal, against whom, a history-sheet is being maintained in the concerned police station, including several serious offences, inasmuch as, eighteen (18) in number. List of the offences has been displayed in Annexure No.3 to the petition which has been issued under the seal and signature of Inspector, Kotwali City, Haridwar.
It would also not be out of place to mention all these offences, as follows, wherefor, either the trial is pending against Mr. Giri or he has been convicted even: -
Sl. Case Section Police Station No. Crime No.
1. 1285/87 60 Ex. Act P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Haridwar P.S. Kotwali
2. 422/90 323/506 IPC Nagar P.S. Kotwali
3. 125/91 394 IPC Nagar 6 P.S. Kotwali
4. 126/91 25/4 Arms Act Nagar P.S. Kotwali
5. 5/93 N.D.P.S. Act Nagar P.S. Kotwali
6. 174/93 2/3 Gangster Act Nagar P.S. Kotwali
7. 583/88 379/411 IPC Nagar P.S. Kotwali
8. 871/89 60 Ex. Act Nagar P.S. Kotwali
9. 551/91 457/380 IPC Nagar P.S. Kotwali
10. 1237/95 25 Arms Act Nagar P.S. Kotwali
11. 96/94 25/4 Arms Act Nagar P.S. Kotwali
12. 292/94 224 IPC Nagar P.S. Kotwali
13. 857/95 Gangster Act Nagar P.S. Kotwali
14. 908/96 N.D.P.S. Act Nagar P.S. Kotwali
15. 82/97 380/411 IPC Nagar P.S. Kotwali
16. 88/97 302 IPC Nagar P.S. Kotwali
17. 94/97 25/27 Arms Act Nagar P.S. Kotwali
18. 189/01 323, 504, 506 IPC Nagar Looking to the aforementioned facts, I feel that if the prosecution, pursuant to the charge-
sheet submitted against the present revisionist, is permitted to be proceeded, then no public servant would be ever capable to discharge his official duties against the criminals.
In view of the above, I allow this revision and quash the impugned chargesheet against the revisionist-Harpal Singh as also the entire 7 proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.8 of 2014, qua the revisionist -Harpal Singh only. With the result, impugned order dated 10.2.2016, thereby levelling the Charge, so far as it relates to the present revisionist, is also quashed.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 22.09.2016 Rdang