Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Motor Vehicles Act in the case. During investigation, petitioner had recorded statements of Balbir Singh (conductor of the Bus involved in the accident), Ved Ram .

(owner of Dhaba) and other witnesses, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In statements of Balbir Singh, Sanjay Kumar and Pawan Kumar, timing of the accident was mentioned as 11 p.m., whereas as per statement of complainant the accident had taken place at 9.45 p.m. Further that, in Mechanical Examination Report no mechanical fault was found in the bus which had dashed with two parked vehicles, however, the Investigating Officer had failed to trace accused Hardeep Singh and had submitted untraced report on 6.11.2016, which was sent to the Office of Supervisory Officer, i.e. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Head Quarters), Mandi {Dy.SP(HQ)} alongwith other records of the case, on perusal whereof, the Dy.SP(HQ) was not satisfied and had issued advisory/ guidelines to the petitioner vide letter dated 7.12.2016, with direction to comply with the guidelines, but despite that the petitioner again had prepared and submitted untraced report on 17.1.2017 and Dy.SP(HQ) had again found that efforts made by the petitioner, to arrest the accused, were not satisfactory and directions/guidelines issued earlier were not complied with by the petitioner and, ...4...

owner of the bus had replied that he was not having any knowledge about the correct address of driver and statements of various persons were also recorded. Call .

detail of mobile number of owner of the Bus was also obtained but on the relevant dates no talks in Bilaspur area were found therein and, therefore, again untraced report was submitted. Thereafter, in compliance of letter dated 19.1.2017, effort to trace accused Hardeep Singh was again made in March 2017 in Swarghat, Kainchi Mod, Sir Naina Devi and J.P. Factory Bagheri, and Nand Gaon District Solan and also in Panjpiri, Chhadol, etc. other places. According to the petitioner, he had also requested the Police Stations Sadar (Bilaspur), Swarghat, etc. for tracing accused Hardeep Singh but finding no clue about him he had again submitted untraced report.

9. According to the petitioner, he was neither careless nor negligent and has not committed an act to be referred as 'insubordination', carelessness or negligence, reflecting poor investigation skill on his part in investigation of FIR No.81/16 referred supra.

10. Petitioner has placed on record copy of order dated 8.8.2018, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mandi, whereby untraced report submitted by SHO Aut has been accepted by the Court and ...8...

14. It is noticeable that investigation of the aforesaid FIR, lateron, was handed over to SHO Aut, who, after conducting investigation for several months, was ...10...

unable to trace accused Hardeep Singh and had submitted untraced report on 27.3.2018 in the Court, which has been accepted by the Magistrate on 8.8.2018, with observation .

that Court is satisfied for reasonable steps taken by police to apprehend the accused. On perusal of order dated 8.8.2018, it is evident that the reasons for filing untraced report assigned by SHO Aut are similar to the reasons assigned by the petitioner in his reports submitted to the Dy.SP(HQ). However, petitioner has been criticized and punished for that but no such comments and/or enquiry was initiated against the SHO, and now, the efforts made by the police to trace accused Hardeep Singh have also been found satisfactory by the Court. Therefore, the very basis, for which petitioner was reported of doubtful integrity and subjected to the Departmental Enquiry, leading to depriving him from further promotion, is non-existent. Reviewing Authority, Accepting Authority as well as Competent Authority, at the time of endorsing, affirming and justifying the recording of remarks in the ACR by the Reporting Officer have acted in mechanical manner and have assigned one and the same reason, i.e. poor quality investigation by the petitioner in case FIR No.81/16. The same result of the investigation, as concluded by SHO, has been approved by the concerned Officers and the same has ...11...