Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1065 (PNJ)

Jagjit Kaur v. State Of Haryana

2000-09-05

V.M.JAIN

body2000
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. Reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Copy given. 2. This order shall dispose of an application dated 2.7.2000 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of Shri Budh Ram Fansal, IPS, Director General of Prisons, Haryana, for expunging the remarks made against him in the order dated 16.1.1998 passed by this Court in Crl. M.No. 5650-M of 1995. In the petition it has been alleged that vide orders dated 16.10.1996 and 16.1.1998, sweeping strictures were passed against the jail authorities. It was alleged that these orders were passed without hearing the applicant or without giving any notice to him. It was further alleged that Shri SPS Rathore, IPS, against whom also the strictures were passed had approached the Honble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.3180-3182 of 1998, against said orders dated 16.10.1996 and 16.1.1998 passed by this Court and the Honble Supreme Court, vide order dated 7.12.1998, had allowed the Special Leave to Appeal and the remarks made by this Court were expunged. It was accordingly prayed that the strictures passed against the applicant in the orders dated 16.10.1996 and 16.1.1998 be expugned in view of the order dated 7.12.1998 passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri SPS Rathore. 3. In the written reply filed by the petitioner, it has been alleged that present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not further alleged that the orders dated 16.10.1996 and 16. 1.1998 were rightly assed by this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 5. So far as the maintainability of the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for expunging adverse remarks is concerned, the same would be maintainable, in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case reported as the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703. 6. Vide order dated 16.10.1996 it was held by this Court that there were reasonable grounds to believe that paroles granted to Dheeraj Pahwa may be the result of fraud or misrepresentation of the facts by him or may the result of some extraneous reasons or mala fide action or misuse of powers by the authorities. 6. Vide order dated 16.10.1996 it was held by this Court that there were reasonable grounds to believe that paroles granted to Dheeraj Pahwa may be the result of fraud or misrepresentation of the facts by him or may the result of some extraneous reasons or mala fide action or misuse of powers by the authorities. But the same requires determination and no definite opinion can be expressed on the basis of the material available on record . Accordingly, the Sessions Judge, Karnal was directed to hold an enquiry. Thereafter, the District and Sessions Judge, Karnal after holding enquiry, submitted report . Thereafter, vide order dated 16.1.1998, while disposing of Cr1. M. No. 5650-M of 1995, strictures were passed against various officers of the Jail Department, for having violated the law and rules /instructions, for extraneous considerations. Consequently, a direction was issued to Chief Secretary to initiate appropriate departmental proceedings against all those officers for various violations by appointing an Enquiry Officer. 7. Shri SPS Rathore, IPS filed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.), 3180-3182 of 1998 S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana and others before the Honble Supreme Court, against orders dated 16.10.1996 and 16.1.1998 passed by this Court, as also the report submitted by the District and Sessions Judge, Karnal dated 26.6.1997. The Honble Supreme Court disposed of the said Special Leave to Appeal on 7.12.1998 and passed the following order :- "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion the High Court ought not to have passed any strictures against the petitioner herein especially in view of the fact that he was not a party in the revision which had been filed before the High Court and he had, therefore, got no opportunity of defending himself. In this view of the matter, the remarks made by the High Court in its judgment dated 16th October, 1996 against the petitioner are directed to be deleted. As a consequence thereof, further proceedings taken against the petitioner in consequence thereof would also stand quashed. 8. The special leave petitions are disposed of with the above directions." 9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the present application is disposed of, in terms of the order dated 7.12.1998 passed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Petition allowed.