Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Post on 28.11.2022.

Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners."

2.Thereafter O.P.(Crl.) No.608/2022 also tagged with that original petition. As per the direction of this Court, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate gave a report and the Registrar (District Judiciary) produced the same with remarks. I am prima facie of the opinion that the explanation given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not acceptable. The main allegation against him is that, he manipulated the evidence of a witness. It is fundamental in criminal law that if a witness is examined before the Court, the deposition should be read over to the witness and he should sign the deposition then and there. The explanation of the Magistrate shows that PW7, the Investigating Officer in this case, after giving evidence, left the court premises without signing the deposition. Even if this is accepted, I am of the prima facie opinion that this is a clear case of dereliction of duty. If PW7 has committed that mistake, he is also responsible.

22. According to the learned Magistrate, he discovered that the signature of the witness was not obtained by the court staff after the examination got over on 24.3.2021. There is no such case for the 3rd respondent in the explanation given by him as per the order dated 17.11.2022. In the remarks, what is stated by the 3 rd respondent is that, PW7 after examination in the court, proceeded to the station without signing the deposition. First of all, if PW7's evidence was recorded, in normal parlance, it is to be presumed that, the signature of the witness is recorded then and there. But, the learned Magistrate blamed the court staff for not getting the signature of the witness in the deposition. If PW7 was examined on that day, it is the bounden duty of the 3rd respondent-Chief Judicial Magistrate to read over the evidence recorded to PW7 and to get his signature then and there. Moreover, a certificate as contemplated in Rule 57 of the Criminal Rules of Practice is seen with the signature of the magistrate in Ext P2. Even after putting the signature in Ext P2, the 3 rd respondent did not check for the signature of witness. This is surprising and cannot be accepted. Even if the case of the additional 3 rd respondent is accepted, there is serious dereliction of duty on the part of the additional 3rd respondent. Moreover, I cannot accept the explanation of 3rd respondent at this stage for the simple reason that the averments in the affidavit filed by PW7 before this Court nullify the above stand of the learned Magistrate. It is true that the version of a Magistrate is to be accepted in normal parlance. But in this case there is allegation from the petitioners/accused to the effect that there is personal enmity from the learned Magistrate towards the accused and hence, without examining PW7, the learned Magistrate created Ext.P2 evidence. PW7 who filed affidavit before this Court in which it is categorically stated that, he has not given any evidence before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini on 24.3.2021. If that is the case, this Court has to presume prima facie that the additional 3rd respondent created or forged the evidence of PW7.

23. The learned Magistrate is relying on Exts.R4(d) and R4(e), reply given by the Bench Clerk and the LD Clerk (Bench Assistant) to support his case. First of all, the duty is on the part of the additional 3rd respondent to see that the evidence of a witness is recorded in his presence and the same is read over to the witness and signature of the witness is obtained in the deposition in his presence. Therefore, I cannot accept the explanation given by the Bench Clerk and the LD Clerk (Bench Assistant). Moreover, in Exts.R4(d) and R4(e), it is stated that the witness (PW7) left the court premises without waiting to complete the court proceedings to catch a boat to another Island, where he is working. These types of explanations cannot be accepted. This Court has to prima facie presume that the Bench Clerk and the LDC Clerk (Bench Assistant) is also colluding with the additional 3 rd respondent to justify the actions of their superior officer. If the averments in Annexure R4(d) and R4(e) are accepted, there is serious dereliction of duty on the part of the Bench Clerk and the LD clerk (Bench Assistant). Genuineness of Annexure R4(d) and R4(e) statements can be verified only after hearing the authors of that statement. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court has to conclude prima facie that the additional 3 rd respondent - the Chief Judicial Magistrate committed forgery by creating the evidence of PW7, which is produced as Ext.P2 in these original petitions. The explanation alleged to be given by the Bench Clerk and the LD Clerk (Bench Assistant) as evident by Exts.R4(d) and R4(e) is also not prima facie acceptable. If Annexure R4(d) and R4(e) are genuine statements, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Bench Clerk and the LD Clerk (Bench Assistant) is colluding with their superior officer - the additional 3rd respondent to justify the acts of their superior.

24. From the above discussions, I am of the prima facie opinion that the additional 3rd respondent forged the evidence of PW7 and he is liable to be proceeded as per Sec.340 of the Cr.P.C. I am of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Sec.195 Cr.P.C because the additional 3 rd respondent appears to have been committed the offence. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that a preliminary enquiry is to be conducted. Whether the Bench Clerk and the LD Clerk (Bench Assistant) are involved in aiding the additional 3 rd respondent is to be decided based on their statement before this Court in the preliminary enquiry. If Exts.R4(d) and R4(e) is correct, they are also liable to be proceeded in accordance with law. Therefore, notice is to be issued to the Bench Clerk and LD Clerk (Bench Assistant) also under Sec. 340 Cr.P.C. for conducting preliminary enquiry. Moreover, I am of the considered opinion that disciplinary proceedings is to be initiated against the additional 3rd respondent. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that the additional 3rd respondent committed serious misconduct and dereliction of duty. The disciplinary authority of the additional 3 rd respondent is the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the disciplinary authority should place the additional 3 rd respondent under suspension pending enquiry. It is true that whether a person is to be placed under suspension pending enquiry is to be decided by the Disciplinary Authority. But in extra ordinary situations, extra ordinary orders are necessary to protect the interest of justice. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case in which this Court has to direct the Administrator Union Territory of Lakshadweep, to place the 3rd respondent under suspension pending enquiry. It is true that now the additional 3rd respondent is working as Secretary, District Legal Service Authority. But even then, since he is in the service, there are chances to influence the witness and even intrude into the documents by the additional 3rd respondent. Therefore, I am directing the Administrator to place the 3rd respondent under suspension pending enquiry. Such a direction is necessary to protect the faith of the public in the system. Even if a person is occupying the post of Magistrate or Judge, the law of the land is applicable to all. If there is any dereliction of duty, the constitutional courts should step in to strengthen the trust of the people in the judiciary. The Magistrate, Judges and other presiding officers are not above the law and if they commit any dereliction of duty, they have to face the consequences. This should be a lesson to all.