Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hari Ram Choudhary vs State on 23 February, 2012
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
1.
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1088/2008
(Hari Ram Choudhary Vs. The State of Rajasthan)
DATE OF ORDER : 23.02.2012
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Siddharth Karwasra, for the petitioner.
Mr. Aneesh Bhurat, Public Prosecutor.
The present misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.04.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, Jalore in Criminal Appeal No.42/2006, wherein, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, stricture has been passed against the petitioner, who was the Investigating Officer involved in the investigation of the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to Para No.15 of the order impugned submits that the observations made in the said Para amounts to passing of stricture against the petitioner and since the said stricture was passed without hearing the petitioner and without proper opportunity of showing any cause, such a stricture is liable to be set aside by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and considered the arguments advanced at the bar.
The observation which has been made by the learned Appellate Court while passing the order impugned is not a stricture but an action proposed by virtue of Section 66 of the General Rules (Criminal), 1980. Resultantly, the averment made in the instant petition that the observation made by the learned Appellate Court amounts to a stricture cannot be said to be sustainable. Rule 66 of the General Rules (Criminal), 1980 reads as under:-
"Rule 66. District Magistrate and Inspector General of Police to be informed of police errors.
- When in any case of which a Court has taken cognizance, the Presiding Officer has occasion to notice any erroneous practice on the part of the police or has reason to believe that a confession has been elicited by the police from an accused persons by the use of force or undue influence, or that any other grave irregularity has occurred, he shall bring the matter to the notice of the District Magistrate concerned or Inspector General of Police. It shall be incumbent on the authority so informed to apprise the Presiding Officer concerned of the action taken by it in the matter."2.
The instant misc. petition which has been filed for seeking expunging of the said observation is thus misconceived. That apart, in pursuance to the directions of the learned trial court, it is informed to this Court that the Director General has already taken action against the petitioner. Resultantly, since the petitioner is always at liberty to challenge the order of the Director General imposing penalty upon him by way of an appeal, no interference is called for by this Court in the order impugned.
In view of the above, this misc. petition is disposed of.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
ms rathore