Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24 It is relevant to note that this statement of PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya is contrary to the admitted dismissal order dated 18.05.2017, Ex.A1 of both the accused persons, which clearly records that Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had not joined the departmental proceedings against both the accused persons.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch called was made by him, by using the mobile of the taxi driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma (as the battery of his mobile phone had drained out); that it had taken him approximately 40 minutes to come to PS C. R. Park from Ballabgarh; that he does not remember, as to where the taxi was parked at PS C. R. Park, when he had gone there; that it is wrong to say that the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had met him for the first time, 10­15 steps inside the gate of PS C. R. Park, when he had gone there; that in fact, he had met him near the desk of the Duty Officer of PS C. R. Park; that at that time, only the Duty Officer and both the accused were present there; that at that time, he had not given any written complaint to the Duty Officer; that at that time, he had not even orally told the Duty Officer about the incident; that he had not done so because he had spoken to both the accused persons; that on 24.07.2009, he had finally left PS C. R. Park at about 11.30 pm, after staying there for 1.5 hours; that there was only one table and four chairs in room no.107 of PS C. R. Park; that there was no bed in the said room; that it is wrong to say that at that time, room no.107 of PS C. R. Park was a Malkhana of PS Govind Puri and not the room of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj or any other IO; that he does not have much idea about ranks in the police hierarchy and that he used to address the accused, Satyavrat Bhardwaj as Inspector; that in the complaint, Ex.PW9/A, he had mentioned the designation of the accused, Satyavrat Bhardwaj as Sub­Inspector and not Inspector; that at that time, he knew the rank of the accused, Satyavrat Bhardwaj; that he had written the complaint, Ex.PW9/A at his home; that in his statements, he had not told the investigating agency that two more policemen had accompanied him and both the accused persons, from PS C. R. Park to Alaknanda Petrol Pump; that he does not remember if apart from the complaint, Ex.PW9/A, the State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch floor of PS C. R. Park; that he does not remember the IO room number, today; that it is correct that on the second floor of the PS C. R. Park, the room numbers start from the number 200; that the duty officer and the DD writer of PS C. R. Park used to sit together in the PS; that it is correct that in July, 2009, CCTV cameras were installed at PS C. R. Park, at the place, where DO and DD writer used to sit; that it is correct that in no police station, the DO and the DD writer can leave the police station or go out for any work whatsoever, during their working hours; that at the relevant time, an IO room of PS C. R. Park, used to have four five chairs, two tables and one bed; that the IO room of ASI Jameel and the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, had the same furniture; that being the Chittha Munshi, he was on duty for 24 hours on 24.07.2009 and that he does not remember if on 24.09.2009, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had scolded any public person on the gate of PS C. R. Park at around 9.30 PM. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, PW18 ASI Lile Singh had inter­alia deposed that after duty, the accused, Ct. Pramod did not use to stay in the barracks of the police station. 37