Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
Criminal Misc. M No.37077 of 2009
Major Gurjinder Singh Benipal
v.
State of Punjab & Ors.
{Decided on 15/10/2012}
(1) There is no allegation of first investigation conducted by SIT being perfunctory or impartial then why and for what purpose there would be need to constitute another SIT to carry out so-called further investigation.
(2) If any new facts have surfaced which indeed they are not new, these have to be presented before the court by the defence--Basically, these are the pleas which the accused would raise in their defence and when the investigating agency after presenting a challan starts looking into it, it cannot be termed as further investigation, but has to take the shape of reinvestigation or fresh investigation, which is clearly impermissible.
(3) Why cannot the accused-respondents plead all these aspects before the court for which they would get sufficient opportunities.
(4) Any investigation done by second SIT is beyond the jurisdiction and power of the investigating agency and not permissible as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure--If it was only a further investigation, then why it could not be entrusted to the previous SIT--Why this change--As if that, this SIT is to suit the interest of some one influential? The Court has to see that interference of this nature does not arise in anyone’s mind.
(5) It is not such a case where some police official has come across some evidence on its own--Rather, in this case this action has been taken on the application moved by the accused person--No new evidence has surfaced which was not before the earlier investigating team--This ‘CD’ is part of challan already presented before the court--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.157--Investigation--Further Investigation--Fresh Investigation--Distinction between--Where such investigation is to supplant the earlier investigation, which obviously would be that some additional material has come on record to further strengthen the case of the prosecution against the person accused or some more accused has surfaced--The investigating agency would have power to carry out that investigation which will be in furtherance of the investigation already conducted--Whereafter completion of investigation, challan is presented and report filed before the court, then the fresh material which may surface may have to be presented to the court and where the investigating agency take that into account to leave the accused out of the rigors of law, it will in no manner be in furtherance of the investigation which has already been completed--It will only be a fresh investigation which has revealed something new leading to exoneration of the accused and it is not in any manner supplemental, but would be a supplanting the earlier investigation--Such an investigation, cannot be termed as further investigation. (Para 59)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.157--Investigation--Not only a fair trial but fair investigation is also a constitutional right--The investigation, thus, has to be fair and judicious--This has been held to be minimum requirement of rule of law--This constitutional guarantee is not only available where the tainted investigation is directed against the accused persons having an affect on him. It would equally be for the aggrieved person and a victim to allege that he is not being treated fairly by injudicious investigation to favour the accused persons and, thus, would violate his constitutional rights.
(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.157--Investigation--The investigation should not prima-facie be indicative of a biased mind and every effort should be made to bring the guilty to law as no bobody stands above law dehors his position and influence in the society.
(E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.157--Investigation--Where investigation is done under the garb of carrying out further investigation, but it does not further the cause or course of earlier investigation and takes the shape of fresh report or reports and is not confined to further evidence obtained during the investigation, then obviously the same may not validly pass the test of being a further investigation but would definitely take the shape of fresh or reinvestigation where different conclusions and finding are given either on the basis of same evidence or on the basis of some new evidence which may have surfaced--The meaning of word “further” cannot be ignored--Further investigation has to be an additional to one which is already held more than what has been earlier held and it would has to be supplemental and, in my view, cannot supplant the earlier investigation--If it is so done, it would certainly take the shape of reinvestigation where the earlier investigation leading to filing of the report is undone--It cannot but be reinvestigation or a fresh investigation which is not supplemental to the earlier investigation and would be a course which is impermissible.
(F) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Inherent Powers--If High Court would find that the trial for a criminal case is going astray, it cannot be a silent spectator and just sit and watch--Trial has to be protected from external interference.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Conducting a new investigation under the guise of "further investigation" when it effectively reopens or replaces the earlier investigation is not legally valid.
Legal Limits on Investigation Post-Challan:
Reinvestigation is only permissible when new evidence surfaces that could exonerate the accused or add significant new material, not merely to revisit existing evidence or allegations.
Fairness and Judicial Oversight:
The courts have the authority to intervene if investigations appear biased, tainted, or conducted with ulterior motives, especially when influential persons are involved or when the investigation seems to be manipulated to favor certain parties.
Role of Court and Inherent Powers:
The judiciary can intervene to prevent external interference, especially when investigations are influenced by powerful individuals or political pressures.
Procedural Safeguards:
The investigation process should not be used as a tool to shield the accused or to manipulate the course of justice.
Implications of Improper Investigation:
The courts have the authority to quash or set aside investigations that are found to be conducted improperly or with malafide intent, and to ensure that justice is not compromised by external influences.
Protection Against External Interference:
The judiciary must safeguard the trial and investigation process from external influences, especially when influential or powerful individuals are involved, to uphold the rule of law and maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
Finality of Investigation and Trial:
These points collectively emphasize that while further investigation is permissible, it must be strictly distinguished from reinvestigation or fresh investigation. The process must adhere to principles of fairness, impartiality, and legality, with judicial oversight to prevent misuse or external influence, especially in cases involving influential parties.
Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - Rule of law is supreme. Law has to prevail at any cost. The prime responsibility to see that rule of law prevails may be that of the State and the State machinery but the violation thereof, if ever noticed, when some bigwigs are involved where the State may be seen faulting in performance of its duties, the Courts have to step in to ensure that the law prevails. An over-riding duty of the Courts has always been to ensure administration of justice. This is to maintain public confidence of people at large in the rule of law and justice and to uphold the majesty of law. When some complaint is made of any indifferent action or lethargy against the might of administration and where the State machinery fails to protect citizens lives, liberty and property or where investigation is conducted to help the highly placed accused persons, it would be but natural for the Courts to step in to prevent this undue miscarriage of justice. Doing justice is the paramount duty of the Courts and the same can not be abrogated, diluted or diverted by permitting manipulative investigation to leave the accused of the hook by some crook methods.’ The Courts have then to ensure that the authority of the State is not misused in this manner to shield men of might. The Courts have to do so to maintain the trust of the society in the rule of law and majesty of law, otherwise justice delivery system would suffer a serious scar, rendering the Courts almost negatory.
2. The above observations are not mere rehotics but a genuine feel and concern of the law and the law Courts for which these exist. This may not normally arise in routine rut of the mill cases but presently are very often before the Court when some influential people use their power and might to taint and interfere with the course of investigation, to which the investigating machinery often buckles down. The case in hand is such, where a public servant beaten black and blue while performing his duties in the office, has come crying before the Court to complain that illegal efforts are being made to save the main accused named by him for this murderous assault and that too for performing his duties diligently and not succumbing to the pressure to waiver and extend undue favours to those in power.
3. Major Gurjinder Singh Benipal, an ex-serviceman, as his name would obviously indicate, and now serving as Tehsildar at Ludhiana, the place famous for land sharks on prowl, has lodged an FIR on 19.6.2009, alleging that while present in his office and performing his duties as Sub Registrar in the Revenue Department, was attacked at 10.45 A.M. by Kamaljit Singh Karwal and Simarjit Singh alongwith their henchmen, who came to his place of work armed with dangs, iron rods, kirpans, knives and hockey sticks. These two persons leading the crowd of attackers, namely, Kamaljit Singh Karwal and Simarjit Singh were the elected Councillors of the City Corporation, controlling Ludhiana. Allegation is that Kamaljit Singh Karwal raised a lalkara and at his instigation, all the persons started giving blows to petitioner with their respective weapons. Surinder Singh son of Malkiat Singh allegedly attacked at the neck/throat of the petitioner. He was dragged out of his place, where Kamaljit Singh Karwal fired from his pistol. Harbans Singh @ Raju allegedly gave rod blow on the right leg of the petitioner. He fell down on the ground and lied motionless. Assailants thought that perhaps he has died due to bullet injury and they apparently retreated from the place, taking him as dead. While leaving the place, they took away licenced .32 bore revolver of the petitioner with six live cartridges loaded therein, his purse, his gold chain weighing 4 tolas and Longiness Swiss watch. FIR No.113 was lodged on 19.6.2009. This occurrence was witnessed by one Mr.Chetan Khanna, who was serving as Registration Clerk and Mr.Paramjit Singh. The offences added in the FIR are under Sections 186, 353, 332, 333,
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
