The mandatory nature of sanction for prosecution of public servants and the duty of the court to scrutinize evidence carefully.

JUDGMENT :

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.

This order shall dispose of above mentioned two revision petitions as both have arisen from a common judgment dated 4.4.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad.

2. The petitioners were tried for committing the offences under Sections 223, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) in case FIR No. 95 dated 3.2.2003, registered at Police Station Central Faridabad. Vide judgment dated 1.11.2011, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class found the petitioners guilty for the offences under Sections 223, 120-B and vide order dated 2.11.2011 sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 223 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 120-B IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

3. Aggrieved of the judgment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, the petitioners filed two separate appeals which came up for hearing before Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Both the appeal were dismissed on 4.4.2012.

4. Still aggrieved of the judgments and order passed by the Courts below, the petitioners have preferred two separate revisions.

5. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 3.2.2003, Sub Inspector Ram Kumar moved a complaint to the effect that he along with Head Constables Ran Singh, Udeybir, Tehsildar Singh, Anil Kumar, Bharat Singh, Naresh Kumar and Rameshwar had brought five accused from Tihar Jail, New Delhi to produce them before the different Courts at Faridabad Court complex.

6. It is alleged that out of above five accused, two accused, namely, Iqbal son of Alla Khan and Fakru son of Kannu, who were facing trial under Sections 399 and 402 IPC in FIR No. 374/2001, registered at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, were handcuffed together. Both of them were to be produced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Since the learned Judge was not holding Court on 3.2.2003 because of holiday, both the accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class/Duty Magistrate. Constable Anil Kumar and Constable Tehsildar Singh (petitioners) were directed to produce the above said accused before the Duty Magistrate. Constable Tehsildar Singh-petitioner was armed with a 9 mm carbine weapon. Since the weapon was not allowed to be taken inside the Court, Constable Anil Kumar-petitioner took both the accused inside the Court room, whereas Constable Tehsildar Singh-petitioner was deputed on the gate of the Court. As the Court room was jam-packed, the Reader of the Court had taken the signatures of both the accused on the case file and, thereafter, somehow accused Iqbal took his hand out of the handcuff and by taking the advantage of the rush in the Court room, slipped away. It is further alleged in the complaint that Fakru did not disclose that accused Iqbal had removed the handcuff, therefore, he collided with accused Iqbal in this offence. Thus, due to negligence of petitioners Constable Tehsildar Singh and Constable Anil Kumar, accused Iqbal had fled away. Thus, necessary action against the petitioners was sought to be taken. On the basis of the said complaint, the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners.

7. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the petitioners and accused-Iqbal.

8. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 223 and 120-B IPC. Accused-Iqbal was also charged for commission of the offence punishable under Section 224 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The said charge was modified vide order dated 14.11.2005.

9. When the case was fixed for prosecution evidence, accused Iqbal absconded from the trial and he was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 4.6.2009.

10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined as m