Supreme Court Upholds Summoning Order Against Police Officers In A Corruption Case
The Supreme Court affirmed the summoning order passed by the Trial Court against police officers entangled in a paddy misappropriation and corruption case, asserting the sufficiency of prima facie evidence.
The case, originating from allegations of misappropriation by a police inspector, led to a High Court order dismissing a revision plea against the Trial Court’s decision to summon the accused officers.
“In view of the discussion made above, there appears to be prima facie evidence on record to make it a triable case as against the appellant. We, accordingly, are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order”, the Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed.
Advocate Chritarth Palli appeared for the Appellant and Additional Advocate General Sunil Fernandes appeared for the State.
The Appellant challenged the High Court's order which dismissed the Criminal Revision against the Special Judge's decision to summon the Appellant and three other police officials.
The case originated from a complaint filed by Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd. against Appellant, accusing him of misappropriating paddy. The Appellant, an Inspector investigating the case, faced charges related to a demand for money made by Head Constable. The complainant alleged that the Head Constable demanded money from the complainant’s niece, leading to a registered FIR. The Trial Court initially rejected an application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), but the High Court remanded the matter, emphasizing no sanction was required. Subsequently, the Trial Court allowed the application and summoned the four police officials, including the Appellant.
The Court observed that, after considering the submissions and reviewing the record, it was evident that the Complainant, consistently provided detailed information in his statement under Section 161 CrPC. This account remained consistent throughout the investigation and trial, with other witnesses, including Devraj and Eshaa Miglani, corroborating the details. The incident led to an FIR related to a bank, and witnesses mentioned threats, demands for money, and torture of the Complainant by the Appellant and other police officials on the same day.
The Bench observed that the motive for the money demand included refraining from physical torture, avoiding further police remand, facilitating bail, and ensuring good treatment in custody. The Court rejected the argument that the subsequent claim of Rs.24 lakhs was fabricated to target the Appellant for testifying against the Complainant.
Additionally, the Court dismissed the claim that the complainant's application under Section 319 CrPC was retaliatory, emphasizing his consistent statements under Section 161 CrPC preceded the trial.
The Court considered the Appellant's defence of being targeted due to his role as the Investigating Officer against the complainant as a matter for trial. The Court referred to the case of Hardeep Singh v State of Punjab [2014(1) RCR 623] and held that there was prima facie evidence for a case against the Appellant.
The Court declined to interfere with the impugned order, and the appeal was dismissed. The Court also noted that such observations would not influence the Trial Court's independent judgment based on the evidence presented during the trial.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Gurdev Singh Bhalla v State Of Punjab & Ors. (2024 INSC 22)
Appearance:
Respondent: Nupur Kumar, Priyansha Sharma, Diksha Dadu Advocates
