Adverse remarks against public servants must be justified by evidence and made only after affording an opportunity to explain their conduct; mere negligence does not equate to wilful negligence under Section 4 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Prakash Singh, J.

1. Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing the impugned direction issued by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Barabanki in Judgment and Order dated 27-10-2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 9472 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 143 of 2014, under sections 376/323/504/506 of the I.P.C., section 3(2) (V) of the S.C./S.T. Act and section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station-Jaidpur, District-Barabanki., whereby the learned trial court has directed the State-authorities to take action against the applicant under section 4 of the S.C./S.T. Act, for committing negligence in conducting investigation of the case.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the first informant, Sitaram S/o Ram Sanehi, R/o Akbar Dhanethi, Police Station-Jaidpur, district-Barabanki, lodged the first information report against the accused, Tufail S/o Mohd. Hanif alleging therein that on 03-04- 2014, the accused, Tufail committed rape on his daughter, Km. Renu and upon such Tahrir, the first information report was registered as Case Crime No. 143 of 2014, under the abovementioned charges.

4. After the first information report was lodged, the present applicant was inducted as Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and after collecting the evidence, filed the chargesheet against the accused persons.

5. After filing of the chargesheet, learned Magistrate committed the case to the sessions court and the trial commenced, whereupon the witnesses, P.W.-1, Sita Ram, P.W.-2, Dr. Shushma Verma, P.W.-3, the victim, Km. Renu, P.W.-4, the present applicant and P.W.-5, Constable Priya Kumar Tewari, were examined and all the prosecution witnesses constantly supported the prosecution version.

6. While deposing the testimony by the victim, it is stated that ßlh0vks0 lkgc us mlds ekrk firk dks cqyk;k Fkk vkSj ,d dkxt ij gLrk{kj djk fy;k Fkk vkSj dkxt la[;k v&8 izn’kZ d&6 ogh dkxt gS ftl ij lh0vks0lkgc us mldk gLrk{kj cuok;k FkkA**

7. It is alleged that the statement of the victim under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was not got recorded before the Magistrate and even the statement of the doctor was also not recorded by the Investigating Officer/applicant.

8. The learned trial court, considering the abovesaid, a wilful negligence, has made adversarial remarks against the applicant. Being aggrieved, the present application is filed challenging the aforesaid part of the adverse remark in the Judgment and Order dated 27- 10-2015. The adverse remark reads in virbtum as follows :-

Þfoospd ch0lh0 nwcs vij iqfyl v/kh{kd gjnksbZ ds fo:} /kkjk 4 vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr vkijkf/kd okn iathd`r djus ,oa mUgsa vfHk;ksftr djus ds fy, fu.kZ; dh izfr x`g lfpo mRrj izns’k dks Hksth tk; rFkk bl fu.kZ; dh izfr foospd dh lfoZl cqd ij j[kus ds fy, iqfyl egkfuns’kd dks Hksth tk;AÞ

9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned trial court without affording opportunity of hearing, has held the applicant liable for negligence in conducting the investigation, while recommending the action against him under the provision of section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1989). Section 4 of the Act, 1989 reads as under :-

“4. Punishment for neglect of duties.-

(1) Whoever, being a public