Back
2010 Supreme(Raj) 777
[Citation : 2011(2) RLW 1215 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
State of Raj. Vs. Banti @ Mohd. Hassan & Anr. (Jain, J.)
HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, J.
HON'BLE MEENA V. GOMBER, J.
State of Rajasthan
Versus
Banti @ Mohd. Hassan & Anr.
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1083 of 2008, decided on 13.08.2010
J.R. Bijarnia, Public Prosecutor, for State
Headnote:Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, Sec. 29(1)(l) — Duty and responsibility of a police officer — Non-bailable warrant not executed by concerned police officer — Failure of S.H.O. for effecting service of notice or execution of bailable and non-bailable warrants — S.H.O. has sent a frivolous and flimsy report repeatedly, which shows that he has not performed his legal and statutory duty — Held — Liable for suitable legal action to be initiated against concerned S.H.O. — Issue notice to S.H.O. to explain and show cause as to why suitable legal order may not be passed against him. (Para 10)
Appeal partly disposed of.
jktLFkku iqfyl vf/kfu;e] 2007] /kkjk 29¼1½¼,y½ & ,d iqfyl vf/kdkjh dk drZO; ,oa nkf;Ro & lEcfU/kr iqfyl vf/kdkjh }kjk xSj tekurh okjUV fu"ikfnr ugha fd;k x;k & uksfVl dh rkehy djkus ;k tekurh ;k xSj tekurh okjUV dk fu"iknu djkus esa Fkkukf/kdkjh dh foQyrk & Fkkukf/kdkjh us ckj ckj rqPN vkSj fucZy fjiksVZ izsf"kr dh tks ;g n'kkZrh gS fd mlus vius fof/kd ,oa laoS/kkfud drZO; dk fuoZgu ugha fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & lEcfU/kr Fkkukf/kdkjh ds fo:) mi;qä fof/kd dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dk nk;h gS & Fkkukf/kdkjh dks ;g Li"Vhdj.k nsus ,oa dkj.k crkus gsrq uksfVl tkjh fd;k tkos fd D;ksa ugha mlds fo:) mi;qä fof/kd vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkosA ¼in la- 10½
vihy va'kr% fuLrkfjr dhA
Hon'ble JAIN, J.—Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chomu vide its judgment and order dated 30.10.2007 in Sessions Case No. 24/2006 acquitted the accused-respondents Banti @ Mohd. Hassan S/o Ali Hassan and Sumeet Kumar S/o Bala Sahai from the offences under Sections 120-B, 302/34, 201 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.
2. Being aggrieved with the same, the State of Rajasthan preferred leave to appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court vide order dated 13.10.2008 granted leave to appeal to State of Rajasthan and issued notice to accused-respondents.
3. As per office report dated 2.1.2009, notices of respondents No.1 and 2 were received unserved due to their non-presence at their houses.
4. This Court again issued fresh notices to the accused-respondents. As per office report dated 9.4.2009, notice of Respondent No.1 was received unserved with report that he is out of station and notice of respondent No.2 was received unserved with report that his house is locked.
5. This Court again issued fresh notices on 17.4.2009. As per office report dated 20.10.2009, notice of Respondent No.2 Sumit Kumar was received duly served but the notice of Respondent No.1 Banti @ Mohd. Hassan was received unserved for want of fresh address.
6. This Court vide order dated 26.10.2009 issued bailable warrants against both the accused-respondents. Again, vide order dated 19.5.2010, after perusing the report of bailable warrants, this Court directed that the accused-respondents be produced before this Court through non-bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants were issued against them.
7. As per office report dated 9.8.2010, non-bailable warrants of both the accused-respondents were received executed from serving agency, i.e. S.H.O. Police Station Chomu, District Jaipur, Rural with the report that both the respondents are not present at their address since last 5-6 months.
8. On 27.5.2006 a written report was lodged by complainant Wahid S/o Kamruddin and a chalked FIR No.328/2006 was registered at Police Station Chomu. After completion of investigation, Police filed a charge-sheet against accused-respondents to punish them. However, trial Court acquitted both the accused-respondents. Being aggrieved with the same. State preferred leave to appeal against both the accused-respondents which was granted by this Court.
9. From the above, it is clear that it is the State, which has filed charge-sheet before the trial Court to punish the accused-respondents and it is the State, which has filed criminal leave to appeal before this Court to set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and to punish both the accused-respondents. In these circumstances, it is the duty of the State to furnish fresh addresses of the accused-respondents, if the State wants that accused-respondents be punished. It is highly undesirable on the part of the Police for not arresting and producing the accused-respondents despite issuance of non-bailable warrants against them by this Court for want of fresh address or their non-presence at their houses, or on the ground that they are not available at their address for last 5-6 months. Every time a different report has been sent by concerned S.H.O. instead of effecting service of notice of execution of bailable and non-bailable warrants. The address of accused is furnished by Police only to this Court. If the accused-respondents are not available on the address furnished by the State to this Court, then it was their duty to find as to where the accused-respondents are residing at present. No one will furnish their address except the Police, who has filed charge sheet in the case against them and the State, which has preferred leave to appeal before this Court.
10. As per Clause (l) of sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, it is the duty and responsibility of a police officer to perform his duties and discharge such responsibilities as may e enjoined up
