Back
Grants to Lekhpal in 2007 Case, Orders Inquiry Into Warrant Discrepancy
Grants to Lekhpal in 2007 Case, Orders Inquiry Into Warrant Discrepancy Justice Jai Prakash Tiwari flags serious concerns over integrity
The has granted to Mahendra Kumar Dubey, a former Lekhpal accused of manipulating revenue records in 2007, while ordering a into a significant discrepancy between the trial court's and the processes actually received by the police. The court observed that such gaps undermine confidence in the judicial system.
Background: A 19-Year-Old Forgery Case
The case stems from an FIR dated , alleging that Dubey, while serving as a Lekhpal, forged revenue entries to favour co-accused Shiv Prasad on land belonging to the . Dubey, however, claimed he had voluntarily reported the error to the Tehsildar in and requested its correction. The name of Shiv Prasad was subsequently deleted and the 's title restored.
Though departmental proceedings were initiated, Dubey was reinstated. Despite this, criminal proceedings continued and he was unaware of them until , when a was served. He surrendered on , and remained in custody until his .
Court's Observations on Process Irregularities
During proceedings, the High Court noted that , bailable warrants, and non-bailable warrants had been repeatedly issued against Dubey from 2007 onwards but remained unexecuted, despite his known address and government employment. The court directed the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat, to file a personal affidavit regarding the matter.
The inquiry revealed a startling mismatch: the trial court's reflected multiple and warrants, but the police station records showed receipt of only a handful of these processes. Police officials stated that a dated , was served on Dubey's wife, while a issued on , could not be served. Crucially, an order for a on , was never actually issued from the trial court's office.
"Thus, there appears to be a discrepancy between the processes reflected in the
of the trial court and the processes actually received at the concerned police station,"
the court noted.
Legal Framework and Public Trust
The court examined relevant provisions of the
and
governing the issuance, transmission, and execution of process. It emphasised that any lapse in this chain not only affects the rights of the accused but also
"raises serious questions regarding the maintenance and sanctity of the
."
"The confidence of the common public in the judicial system depends, inter alia, upon the accuracy and sanctity of the
. Therefore, any lapse in the maintenance or transmission of judicial processes cannot be treated lightly,"
the court observed.
Decision and Directions
Granting , the court directed Dubey's release on executing a and furnishing two , with conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. The trial court was instructed to expedite the trial.
More significantly, the High Court directed the District Judge, Kanpur Dehat, to initiate a
through a judicial officer unconnected with the case, to ascertain whether the discrepancy arose from
"any inadvertent error, omission or negligence"
on the part of court officials. A copy of the order is to be circulated among all District Judges in Uttar Pradesh, with a warning to remain vigilant regarding the issue of process, which the court described as
"one of the very genesis of a
."
Case Title:
