Back
2008 Supreme(Raj) 1268
[Citation : 2009(2) RLW 1772 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Gautam Jain Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (Panwar, J.)
HONBLE H.R. PANWAR, J.
Gautam Jain
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B.Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6372 of 2005, 4331 of 2003 & 1345 of 2005,
decided on 15.12.2008
R.S. Saluja, for Petitioners;
B.L.Tiwari, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for Respondents
Headnote:Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, Rule 32 — Invocation provisions of Rule 32 by the I.G. Police — While serving second charge-sheet on the same set of facts which culminated in exoneration — Held — A quashi judicial authority cannot review its own order, unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the Statute under which it derives its jurisdiction — Power of review not vested in the authority reviewing the order passed by disciplinary authority exonerating the petitioner — In the thorough investigation, it was proved that occurrence took place as per the FIR — The only ground for submitting F.R. is that the accused persons could not be identified and found as they fled away in the darkness of midnight breaking blockade leaving behind the vehicle and liquor — Quashed. (Paras 12 to 13)
Writ petitions allowed.
jktLFkku flfoy lsok ?oxhZdj.k] fu;U=.k ,oa vihy? fu;e] 1958] fu;e 32 & egkfujh{kd iqfyl }kjk fu;e 32 ds izko/kkuksa dk voyEcu ysuk & mUgha rF;ksa ds lewg ij f}rh; vkjksi i= dh rkehy djkuk ftudh ifjf.kfr nks"keqfDr esa gks pqdh gks & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & v)Z U;kf;d izkf/kdkjh vius Lo;a ds vknsk dk rc rd iqufoZyksdu ugha dj ldrk tc rd fd ml ij iqufoZyksdu dh kfDr fofufnZ"V :i ls ml dkuwu ds rgr iznku u dj nh xbZ gks ftlds rgr og viuh vf/kdkfjrk izkIr djrk gS &izkFkhZ dks nks"keqDr djus okyh vuqkklukRed izkf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vknsk dk iqufoZyksdu djus okyh izkf/kdkjh esa iqufoZyksdu dh kfDr fufgr ugha gksrh & foLr`r vUos"k.k esa ;g izekf.kr fd;k fd ?kVuk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj gh ?kfVr gqbZ & vfUre fjiksVZ isk djus dk ,d ek= vk/kkj ;g gS fd vfHk;qDrksa dh kuk[r ugha dh tk ldh D;ksafd os vk/kh jkr esa va/ksjs dk ykHk mBkrs gq, ukdk cUnh rksM+ dj Hkkx x;s vkSj ihNs okgu o kjkc NksM+ x;s & vknsk vfHk[kf.Mr fd;kA ?in la[;k 12 ls 13?
;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA
.
2. Petitioner Gautam Jain at the relevant time was holding the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and was posted at Police Station Shivganj, District Sirohi. In the midnight of 12/13th January, 2000, he was directed by the concerned Station House Officer (for short “the SHO” hereinafter) P.S. Shivganj to proceed along with Head Constable on a secret information received by him through Mukhbir that illicit liquor is being transported in a jeep bearing No.RJ 22-C 1673. An entry to that effect was recorded in the Rojnamcha at 12.10 A.M. of the midnight of 12/13.1.2000. Petitioner Himmatdan Charan in SBCW No. 1345/05 was Circle Inspector at the relevant time and was SHO of the said police station Shivganj and petitioner Tulsha Ram was Head Constable posted to said police station. The copy of Rojnamcha has been placed on record as Annex.1. On the instructions of the SHO, petitioner Gautam Jain and Head Constable Tulsha Ram with their subordinate staff arranged a Nakabandi at the site. While holding Nakabandi, the Jeep bearing No. RJ 22-C 1673 in respect of which secret information was received by the SHO through Mukhbir, came. The petitioner and other subordinate police staff tried to stop the said jeep, however, the driver of the jeep fled away with the jeep which was carrying illicit liquor. The jeep was chased and ultimately the driver of the jeep stopped the jeep near to a river at Woodland Hotel and fled away in bushes and could not be traced. The jeep containing illicit liquor was brought to the police station and FIR to that effect was recorded being FIR No. 09/2000. The usual investigation was carried out including seizure of the said jeep and the liquor lying therein and statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. It appears that another FIR being FIR No.11/2000 was registered at the instance of some liquor smugglers regarding committing theft of the jeep punishable for the offence under Section 379 IPC, whereas in respect of very jeep, FIR for the offence punishable under Section 19/54 of the Excise Act was registered which was prior in time and in that FIR the jeep was seized along with the illicit liquor which the jeep was found to have been carrying. Both the FIRs were investigated. Initially the matter was investigated by Additional Superintendent of Police, Bali namely Uchhavlal Chhanval, however, subsequently the investigation was transferred to CID (CB) and ultimately the Additional Superintendent of Police, CID (CB) namely Harish Chandra Singh investigated the matter. When the investigation was carried out by CID (CB), it revealed that the police received secret information which was recorded in the Rojnamcha and thereafter the police proceeded to hold Nakabandi and Nakabandi was held, the jeep was intercepted and ultimately it was seized found carrying illicit liquor and the liquor was also seized. However, from the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer it revealed that the driver of the jeep stopped the jeep at Woodland Hotel near river and thereafter ran away in the bushes. A notice was served to the registered owner of the jeep under Section 138 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in reply thereto, the owner of the jeep stated that he has handed over the jeep to one Narpat and Ramesh, at any rate, they were not found and ultimately the police submitted final report on the ground that the accused not found. The other FIR lodged by so called liquor smuggler also came to be investigated and Investigating Officer concluded that no such occurrence has taken place and therefore, a negative final report to the effect that no such occurrence as recorded in the FIR has taken place. At any rate, both the FIRs ultimate
