Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.‖

2. This order refers to an earlier order dated 9th January, 2008 passed in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 29/2008 titled Chetan Sharma v. State & Anr. We would also like to reproduce this order for the sake of clarity:-

― We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. There are certain allegations made in the petition with regard to police officers taking illegal bribes from blue line bus operators operating in Delhi. Six cassettes have been made available to us which allegedly contain such instances of near about 89 police officers taking illegal bribes from Constable to SI in hierarchy. It is not possible for the High Court to monitor the day-to-day activities of the various governmental organisations including cases of their misconduct including activities and allegation of bribery against police officers. The same is a matter to be dealt with and investigated upon and enquired into by the appropriate authorities, namely, the Police Commissioner and his subordinate officers and also by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). Ministry of Home Affairs also has a responsibility in that regard. Therefore, we direct the petitioner to hand over a copy of all those video tapes to the Police Commissioner, to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner and also to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, who will look into the video tapes prepared by the petitioner and thereafter get the matter enquired into and if found fit and proper and any misconduct established, necessary action should be taken.

5. A Division Bench of this Court, comprising the then Acting Chief Justice A.K. Sikri (as his Lordship then was) and Endlaw, J. took serious note of the aforesaid assertions and had passed two orders dated 4 th January, 2012 and 1st February, 2012. These orders, for the sake of clarity, are reproduced below:-

― 04.01.2012 The writ petition was disposed of vide orders dated 28th July, 2010 observing that orders passed on 9th January, 2008 in WP(Crl.) 29/2008 shall apply on all fours in this writ petition as well. As per orders dated 9th January, 2008, the petitioner was allowed to handover copies of certain video cassettes to the Police Commissioner, Chief Vigilance Officer as well as Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and direction was given to the aforesaid authorities to look into the video cassettes prepared by the petitioner and thereafter get the matter inquired into and if found fit and proper and any misconduct established, necessary action was also directed to be taken. The petitioner had handed over those video cassettes and certain memory cards. Original video cassettes and eight memory cards were deposited in this Court as well which are lying in sealed cover. In this application, it is submitted that Police Commissioner or Chief Vigilance Commissioner or Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs have not been carrying out investigation with promptitude and are delaying the matter and it is not known as to what is the progress made in the investigation and whether any action is taken as predicated by this Court, or not. Therefore, prayer is made that the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Police Commissioner and Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs be directed to file the status report in respect of the investigation made by them. This is a reasonable and legitimate prayer made by the petitioner.

24. We have referred to the said facts not as an authority overseeing the investigation, but to examine the contention of the petitioner; whether the investigation has been intolerably inept and sluggish and should, at this stage, be transferred to the CBI.

25. The other contention raised by the Delhi Police relates to the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872. After the order dated 28th July, 2010 was passed, the petitioner had moved CM Nos. 11330- 31/2010 and had deposited sixteen original video cassettes and eight original memory cards to be kept in safe custody in the High Court. These were sealed in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner and retained in the High Court. This fact has been mentioned in the orders dated 4th January, 2012 and 1st February, 2012 and also in the order dated 15 th February, 2012. However, the petitioner had moved application CM No. 3044/2012 and the memory cards of the video tapes were released to him vide order dated 7th March, 2012, with a direction that a copy of the same would be retained for the records. The petitioner has produced before us a seizure memo dated 26th March, 2012 as per which eight memory cards and sixteen video cassettes were seized in the FIR No. 33/2012. This was done in the presence of the petitioner and his advocate. Upon seizure, the container in which the sixteen video cassettes and eight memory cards were kept, were sealed with the seal of the Delhi High Court. The container with the said exhibits were re-sealed with the seal of the Delhi High Court, which were then handed over to the Deputy Registrar of this Court in consonance with the order dated 7th March, 2012. In the status report filed before this Court on 3rd July, 2015, it is accepted by the Delhi Police that on 27th March, 2012 the petitioner had produced one digital video camera recorder (handycam) and one digital video recorder. These were sent to FSL, Rohini alongwith the memory cards on 28th March, 2012 and an expert report dated 30th May, 2013 was received. The report states as under:-

―3. During the course of further investigation the Expert report has been received vide No. FSL/2012/P-2078/PHY-79/12 dated 30/5/13. The report states that the video recordings in video cassettes marked ―Exhibit -VC-1‖ to ―Exhibit-VC-16‖ were having in-camera video shots except video clips with indication of over recording. There is no indication of any form of alteration in the identified in-camera video shots (except those shots having indication of over-recording) on the basis of frame-by-frame examination using Video Analyst System. On examination of video images in video files, namely, ―V0504002.avi‖ in memory card marked ―Exhibit-MC-1‖, ―V0510002.avi‖, ―V0630002.avi‖, ―V0701001.avi‖, ―V0510002.avi‖, in memory card marked ―Exhibit-MC-2‖, V0609002.avi‖, ―V0609001.avi‖, ―V0712002.avi‖ in memory card marked ―Exhibit-MC-3‖, V1204002.avi‖, in memory card marked ―Exhibit-MC-4‖, V0603001.avi‖ in memory card marked ―Exhibit-MC-5‖, V0101002.avi‖, ―V0101003.avi‖, ―V0101004.avi‖, V0101006.avi‖, in memory card marked ―Exhibit-MC-6‖, V0101001.avi, in memory card marked ―Exhibit-MC-7‖, V0112002.avi‖, ―V0112003.avi‖ in memory card marked ―Exhibit-MC-8‖, using Video Analyst System following were observed: 1) Video recording in memory cards ―Exhibit-MC-1‖ to ―Exhibit-MC-8‖, contain one identified video shot in each video file. 2) The video recordings are in digital video format and there is no indication of alternation in the identified video shot on the basis of frame examination using Video Analyst System. In some of the video recording the video recorded in the video cassette is copy of master copy. There was second generation deterioration in image quality. ―.....on examination of handycam marked ―Exhibit-2‖, it was found in working order. Hence, no opinion could be formed regarding query as to whether the recording material HI 8 video cassettes marked ―Exhibit-VC-1‖ to ―Exhibit- VC-16‖ was recorded by the recording device marked ―Exhibit- 2‖. On examination of digital video recorder marked ―Exhibit-3‖, the recorder has a slot for the SD card which can accommodate the SD card similar to SD cards marked ―Exhibit-MC-1‖ to ―Exhibit-MC-8‖.........‖