IMPORTANT POINT
Court can neither add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there, nor take steps for framing a policy.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. Ordinarily we would have been loath to entertain an appeal by special leave challenging the interim order, but we are compelled to do so in the instant case. There is a singular reason for the same since the High Court has travelled much beyond the lis to issue directions which, we are disposed to think, it could not have.

3. The factual matrix as unfolded is that the District Magistrate, Allahabad and Raibareli granted excise licence to run country liquor shops under U.P. Excise (Settlement of Licenses Retail Sale of Country Liquor) Rules, 2002, license for foreign liquor under U.P. Excise Settlement of Licenses for Retail Sale of Foreign Liquor (excluding Beer and Wine) Rules, 2001 and license for model shop under U.P. Excise (Settlement of Licenses for Retail License for Model Shop of Foreign Liquor) Rules, 2003. One of the eligibility conditions for grant of license is that licensee and his family members must possess good moral character and have no criminal background. As the facts would uncurtain, an FIR dated 6.2.2016 was lodged by the respondent No. 1 which gave rise to Crime No. 0049 of 2016 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station George Town, District Allahabad. It was alleged in the FIR that Vinod Kumar Tripathi and his wife Asha Tripathi, respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively had committed fraud and forgery by opening bank account in the name of the respondent no.1 by affixing his photograph, submitting his ID and had withdrawn amount by forging his signature and deposited the security amount with District Excise Officer, Allahabad. The endeavour was to highlight that the said respondents had the criminal antecedents.

4. A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the competent authorities to take necessary action against the opposite party Nos. 7 and 8 as they had violated various rules.

5. The High Court called for the case diary which showed that a final report had been submitted by the Investigating Officer on 23.04.2016 in the office of the Circle Officer, Colonelganj, Allahabad and observed that no attempt had been made by the investigating officer to find out whether the signatures alleged to have been made by the respondent no.1 for the purpose of opening the account were actually made by him or not. The Court also took note of the stand of the bank and observed that if signatures are forged and the informant-respondent no.1 was not present at the time of opening of the account, role of bank officials would also be dubious, suspicious and they may become co-accused.

6. After so observing, the High Court adverted to the methods of investigation and expressed the view that no attempt was made by the investigating officer to find out the genuineness of signature from the hand-writing expert despite the fact that the informant-respondent no.1 had categorically challenged the signatures and no satisfactory reply was given by him. The High Court called upon the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad and District Magistrate, Allahabad, who are in charge of criminal administration to explain the obtaining scenario. The SSP, Allahabad, appeared before the High Court and stated that there had been serious lapses by the investigating officer since appropriate and necessary steps were not taken in the matter of investigation. The SSP further stated that though some training was given to the Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors to conduct investigation, yet most of the time, the said officers remained busy carrying on other duties which resulted in getting less time for investigation purposes. It was also stated by him that in Allahabad district about 250 officers were conducting investigation for more than 11000 offences registered.

7. Noting the statement of the SSP, the High Court observed that it depicts a very sorry state of affairs of maintenance of law and o