Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 409 (CHH)

SHIVNATH SHAH v. STATE OF C. G.

2006-08-22

D.R.DESHMUKH

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28-12-2005 delivered by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Durg in Special Case No.02/2005 whereby the appellants were convicted order Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section-8(C) thereof and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 12 years each and a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years. The appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts are that on 30-12-2004 Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv PW-7 of Police Station-Chhawni while on mobile checking at Power House, Bus Stand, Bhilai at about 6 P.M. received secret information that contraband ganja was being transported from Raipur in Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No.C.G.08/0139. He recorded the secret information at 06.10 P.M. vide Ex.P-17 and sent infoffi1ation thereof to his superiors vide Ex.P-18. Witness Siyaram Singh PW -1 and Vipin Singh PW-2 were summoned vide Ex.P-I to remain present at the time of raid. The Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No. C.G.-08/0139 coming from Raipur was intercepted soon thereafter in presence of the abovementioned witnesses and Head Constable Ashok Yadav PW-8 and Constable Sohrab Khan PW-9. The occupants appellant Vijay Menon and co-accused Rane @ Ranjit on seeing the police fled. Driver appellant Shivnath was apprehended. After preparing panchnama vide Ex.P-2 for affecting the search without obtaining a search warrant and giving notice to the appellant Shivnath Shall @ Munna, a search of the Tata Indica Car was conducted. 28 boodles wrapped in newspaper were found in the dicky, and below the seats. Panchnama Ex.P-6 was prepared. Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv PW -7 on personal experience felt that the bundles contained ganja and prepared panchnama vide Ex.P-7. The seized contraband ganja was taken to the shop of Rajendra Paswan PW-3 at Tea Market, Old Chhawni, for weighment who found that the total weight of the ganja in 28 boodles was 180 Kilograms. Weighment Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-8. Two samples of 50 grams each from 28 bundles were separated and panchnama Ex.P-9 was prepared. 56 samples thus prepared and the remaining ganja contained in 28 bundles was sealed by M.K. Dhruv, PW-7. Seal Panchnama EX.P-10 was prepared. Weighment Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-8. Two samples of 50 grams each from 28 bundles were separated and panchnama Ex.P-9 was prepared. 56 samples thus prepared and the remaining ganja contained in 28 bundles was sealed by M.K. Dhruv, PW-7. Seal Panchnama EX.P-10 was prepared. 56 sealed sample packets and the remaining ganja contained in 28 sealed bundles and Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No.C.G.-08/0139 were seized on the spot i.e. in front of Project Automobiles vide seizure memo Ex.P-11. Appellant-Shivnath Shal1 was arrested vide Ex.P-12. On 30-12-2004, 28 boodles and 56 sample packets taken there from were entrusted in sealed condition for safe custody at the malkhana of Police Station-Chhawni to Head Constable Manharan lal Yadav PW -5 who entered it in the malkhana register Ex.P-19-C. On 31-12-2004, 56 sample packets were entrusted to Constable Narrotam Singh PW-6 for being taken to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for chemical analysis which was delivered by him at the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur on 03-01-2005. Vide report EX.P-26 of Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, it was opined that all the 56 sample packets contained ganja. 3. Charge sheet was filed only against the appellant Shivnath Shah since other co-accused Rane @ Ranjit and appellant Vijay Menon were absconding. Appellant Vijay Menon was arrested and produced before the learned trial Judge on 21-03-2005. Rane @ Ranjit remained absconding during the trial. 4. Appellants Shivnath Shah and Vijay Menon were charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section-8(C) of the Act. Both appellants abjured the guilt. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses. One Arun Kumar Mishra D. W.-1 was examined by the appellants who deposed that the police had apprehended appellant Shivnath Shah from his house at about 9 P.M. on the assertion that contraband ganja had been seized from a car whose driver had named him. 5. The learned trial Judge relied upon the evidence led by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellants as shown above in para-1. (Supra) 6. Shri Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that independent witnesses Siyaram PW -1 & Vipin Singh PW - 2 and witness of weighment panchnama Rajendra Paswan PW-3 did not support the prosecution story. (Supra) 6. Shri Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that independent witnesses Siyaram PW -1 & Vipin Singh PW - 2 and witness of weighment panchnama Rajendra Paswan PW-3 did not support the prosecution story. It was argued that the prosecution had failed to establish that the samples sent for chemical analysis bore the same impression of seal which was alleged to have been put by Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv PW - 7 at the time of alleged search. It was pointed out that in seal panchnama Ex.P-10, Seizure Memo Ex.P-11 and Weighment Panchnama Ex.P-8 as also in sample panchnama Ex.P-9, specimen impression of the seal was not affixed. Malkhana Register Ex.P-19-C also did not disclose that a specimen impression of seal was also deposited along with 28 bundles and 56 sample packets of ganja. It was urged that there was total non-compliance of Section-55 of the Act since before entrusting the aforesaid articles in malkhana to Bead Constable Manharan lal Yadav PW-5, Station House Officer of Police Station-Chhawni did not affix his seal on the contraband articles. It was also pointed out that the specimen impression of the seal "K.R.B.C. - O.I.C.-M.P.P." drawn by the Forensic Science Laboratory in its report Ex.P-26 did not, in any manner show that the seal was either an official seal of Police Station-Chhawni or a personal seal of Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv PW-7. It was also urged that memo of Senior Superintendent of' Police Ex.P-20 dated 31-12-2004 showed that 56 sample packets were entrusted to Narottam Singh PW-6 on 31-12-2004 while no such endorsement was available in the Malkhana Register Ex.P-19-C. The acknowledgement Ex.P-21 given by the Forensic Science Laboratory clearly showed that sample packets were delivered at the Forensic Science Laboratory on 03-01-2005 i.e. on the 04th day. No explanation was given by Constable Narottam Singh PW -6 as to where did he keep the sample packets during this period. It was argued that the possibility that the samples packets were tampered with during this period could not be ruled out. Lastly, it was urged that the appellants were falsely implicated by Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv PW-7 to shield the real culprit i.e. Ajay Kumar Mishra, the owner of the Tata Indica Car and his driver Rane @ Ranjit who was driving the car. Lastly, it was urged that the appellants were falsely implicated by Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv PW-7 to shield the real culprit i.e. Ajay Kumar Mishra, the owner of the Tata Indica Car and his driver Rane @ Ranjit who was driving the car. On these premises, it was urged that conviction of the appellants and the sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge were liable to be set aside. On the other hand, Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, learned Panel Lawyer argued in support of the impugned judgment. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, I have perused the record of Special Case No.02/2005 with utmost circumspection. Section-52 & 55 of the Act read as under: Section-52. Disposal of persons arrested and articles seized- (1) Any officer arresting a person under Section -41, Section-42, Section-43 or Section-44 shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest. (2) Every person arrested and article seized under warrant issued under sub section (1) of section 41 shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to the Magistrate by whom the warrant was issued. (3) Every person arrested and article seized under sub section (2) of section 41, section 42, section 43 or section 44 shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to- (a) the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station, or (b) the officer empowered under section 53. (4) The authority or officer to whom any person or article is forwarded under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) shall, with all convenient dispatch, take such measures as may be necessary for the disposal according to law of such person or article; Section-55. Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered An officer-in-charge of a police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under this Act within the local area of that police station and which may be delivered to him and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose, to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-in-charge of the police station. 8. 8. A cumulative reading of these two provisions makes it clear that what is strictly required is that when any police officer, below the rank of the officer-in-charge of police station apprehends a person, suspected to be in possession of narcotic drug or other psychotropic substance, he has to take charge of that person, detain him, conduct his search and in case such a person is found to be in possession of any drug or substance of prohibited category, then place him under arrest. Thereafter the mandate of law is that he has to forthwith produce such a person, as well as the articles seized from him, before the officer-in-charge of the police station. 9. A bare reading of Section-55 makes it clear that it is the Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station who is to take charge of the articles seized and to keep them in safe custody, and allow any person, who accompanies such seized articles to the Police Station, to affix his seal on the articles or samples thereof, and has necessarily to affix the seal of the officer-in-charge of the Police Station on such parcels. 10. The Legislative intention is clear, that samples to be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory in an offence which can visit a person with such grave minimum penal consequences like R.I. for ten years and fine of RS.I Lakh and further imprisonment in lieu thereof, as a matter of legislative policy, ought to be handled by a senior officer, i.e. the officer-in-charge of the police station. It is this officer who has to take charge of the seized commodity, have it sampled and sealed and then get it deposited in the Police Station for safe custody pending orders of the Magistrate, and affix his seal on the samples prepared out of the seized commodity and it is only in the event of his permitting some junior officer accompanying the seized articles to the Police Station for depositing the same in the Police Station, such officer may affix his seal on those parcels. 11. 11. Thus the only construction possible from a reading of Section 55 of the Act, in conjunction with Section 52(3), is that it is the officer-in-charge of the police station, who is to take charge of the person arrested, as well as the articles seized and to allow such other officer accompanying those articles to put his seal on the parcels and to have the samples taken in his presence, and sealed with his own seal, and then get them deposited at the police station for safe custody. 12. The sentencing policy, as incorporated under the Act is so stringent and rightly so because it is ought to be really deterrent, so as to curb the activities of people who indulge in trafficking of narcotic drugs who are proving a menance to the health of the society. The legislature, aware of the heavy minimum sentence of 10 years of R.I. and fine of Rs. 1 Lakh introduced inbuilt safeguards in the scheme contained in chapter-V of the Act so that the investigation is conducted in such a manner that there is no scope for any type of suspicion or doubt either about the authenticity of the recovery or of tampering of the samples which are sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The provision contained in Section-55 of the Act is carved out with that end in view. The words "seal of the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station" reflect the intention of the legislature. Once, the S.H.O. of the concerned police station takes charge of the contraband article, affixes his seal on the samples taken there from and entrusts the sealed articles at the malkhana, it would ensure against tampering with the samples. Non compliance of the provision of Section-55 of the Act would have a definite bearing on appreciation of evidence in the facts and circumstances of each case. 13. In order to maintain transparency in the investigation conducted in such offences, at the time of sealing of the samples as required by section-55 of the Act, a specimen impression of the seal should also be prepared and deposited along with the sample packets in the Malkhana and is also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory which can verify whether the seal affixed on the sample packets tallied with the specimen impression of the seal sent with the sample packets. If this is done, it would, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, remove any doubt about the authenticity of the sealing of the samples. 14. It is regrettably noted in this case that not only Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv PW -7 failed in his duty cast upon him but the officer-in-charge of Police Station Chhawni betrayed the responsibility placed upon him under Section-55 of the Act. Although, the seal panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-10 Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv PW - 7, for the reasons best known to him, did not think it necessary even to imprint a specimen impression of the seal on the panchnama thereby rendering the seal panclmama meaningless. The seizure memo Ex.P-11 also did not bear the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the samples. As mandated by Section-52(3) of the Act, a duty was cast upon Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv to forward the appellant Shivnath Shah and the 28 bundles of contraband ganja without unnecessary delay to the officer-in-charge of the Police Station-Chhawni. A duty was then cast upon the officer-in-charge of Police Station-Chhawni to take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending orders of Magistrate, all articles seized by Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv PW -7 under the Act which were delivered to him. It was the officer-in-charge of Police Station-Chhawni who had an authority to allow any officer accompanying such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for the said purpose to affix his seal on such articles or to take samples from them and all samples so taken should also have been sealed with the seal of the Officer in charge of the Police Station-Chhawni. 15. The provision contained in Section-55 reflects trust in the officer-in-charge of every police station that he would in his personal supervision allow samples to be taken from the contraband articles seized and thereafter shall put his seal on such samples to ensure against tampering with the sample packets till they reached F.S.L. In this case, there is no evidence to show that the samples were prepared in the presence of officer-in-charge of Police Station-Chhawni who had affixed his seal to the samples which had already been prepared by Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv at the place of seizure, in violation of the mandate ofSection-52(3) and 55 of the Act. The provision contained in Section-55 of the Act has to be strictly complied with not only by the Police Officer affecting the seizure but also by the officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station. It is not disputed that M.K. Dhruv PW -7 was not the officer-in-charge of Police Station-Chhawni. It is also not disputed that samples were not taken from the seized contraband articles in presence of the officer-in-charge of Police Station-Chhawni and were also not sealed by the officer-in-charge of Police Station-Chhawni. Head Constable Manharan lal Yadav PW-5 also admitted in cross-examination in para-3 that the seized articles were not produced before the Officer in charge of the Police Station Chhawni and that the Officer in charge had also not affixed his seal on the seized packets. It is also to be noted that Malkhana Register Ex.P-19-C does not in any manner give the description of the seal which was used to seal the 56 sample packets. It also does not show that a specimen impression of the seal was deposited in the Malkhana along with the sample packets and the remaining contraband articles. 16. Constable Narrotam Singh PW -6 was entrusted with the sample packets on 31-12-2004 along with the memo of Ex.P-20 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg for taking it to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Malkhana Register EX.P-19-C does not bear any endorsement as to when the sample packets were taken out from the malkhana and delivered to Narrotam Singh. The acknowledgment of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.P-21 clearly shows that 56 sample packets were delivered on 03-01-2005 by Constable Narrotam Singh at the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming in the testimony of Narrotam Singh PW -6 as to the reason for the delay occasioned. In para-4 of the cross-examination he admitted that he did not care to even look at the seal with which the samples were sealed. In the abovementioned facts and circumstances of the case the possibility that during this period the samples could have been tampered with cannot thus be ruled out. 17. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.P-26 shows a drawing of the seal which was found on the sample packets as "K.R.B. C. O.I.C. M.P.P." There is absolutely no evidence to show what the above letters meant. 17. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.P-26 shows a drawing of the seal which was found on the sample packets as "K.R.B. C. O.I.C. M.P.P." There is absolutely no evidence to show what the above letters meant. It neither reflects that it was a seal of the O.I.C. of P.S. Chhawni nor shows that it was a personal seal used by the Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv. Seizure memo EX.P-II does not show any identification mark having been put on the sample packets. The entry in the malkhana register Ex.P-19-C also does not show any identification mark having been put on the sample packets. There is no evidence to show how and when and by whom the identification marks A-1 to A-28 and B-1 to B-28 were put on the 56 sample packets. The manner in which the investigating officer Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv PW -7 conducted investigation in utter disregard of provision of the Act does not rule out the possibility of tampering of the samples before they reached the Forensic Science Laboratory. In the facts and circumstances of this case as mentioned above, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory cannot therefore form the basis for conviction of the appellants under Section 20(B)(ii)(C) of the Act. 18. Two independent witnesses Siyaram Singh PW-1 & Vipin Singh PW-2 did not support the prosecution case. Both stated that they were called at the Police Station-Chhawni and asked to sign several documents. Head Constable Ashok Yadav PW-8 also admitted that witnesses Siyaram Singh PW -1 & Vipin Singh PW -2 were not present when Tata Indica car was intercepted. Rajendra Paswan PW-3 the witness who conducted the weighment also turned hostile and deposed that he was called at the Police Station to weigh some bundles containing ganja 19. The testimony of Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv PW -7 that Rane @ Ranjit and Vijay Menon who were seated in the Tata Indica Car were able to run away is not reliable at all. Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv PW -7 was accompanied with sufficient police force. There is no evidence to show that any Police Officer or Staff had chased the fleeing co-accused Rane @ Ranjit or the Appellant Vijay Menon. Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv PW -7 was accompanied with sufficient police force. There is no evidence to show that any Police Officer or Staff had chased the fleeing co-accused Rane @ Ranjit or the Appellant Vijay Menon. The manner in which Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv has tried to shield Ajay Kumar Mishra, owner of the Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No. C.G.-08/0139 also creates a serious doubt in the manner in which investigation was conducted. If the vehicle was intercepted and searched in front of Project Automobiles, Bhilai which is a National Highway as per map Ex.P-13 there should not have been any difficulty in apprehending the occupants of the car. Head Constable Ashok Yadav PW -8 admitted in para-12 that the occupants who tried to flee could have been apprehended. Constable Sohrab Khan PW -9 stated that he did not remember from which door of the car co-accused Rane @ Ranjit and Vijay Menon fled. His testimony also does not show that anybody even made an attempt to chase the fleeing accused. It appears that Rane @ Ranjit is the driver of Ajay Kumar Mishra who was driving the said vehicle on 30-12-2004. The testimony of Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv PW -7 does not show whether the appellants were seated on the front seat or the back seat. Ex.P-18 is an intimation sent by him to the City Superintendent of Police after intercepting the Tata Indica Car which does not show that the appellant Shivnath Shal1 and Vijay Menon were seated in the car. Even the name of Rane @ Ranjit is missing. Here again, the needle of suspicion revolves around Ajay Mishra, owner of the car. The testimony of Arun Kumar Nirmalkar D.W.-1 that Police had gone to the house of the appellant Shivnath Shah at about 9 P.M. and had told him that he had been called at the Police Station since ganja had been seized from a car and the driver had named Shivnath, is rendered plausible as it is wholly unrebutted in cross examination. The facts arid circumstances of the case and the manner in which the investigation was conducted by Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv does not rule out the possibility that the appellant Vijay Menon and Shivnath Shah@ Munna were falsely implicated by the Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv PW -7 to shield the main culprits i.e. Ajay Mishra and Rane @ Ranjit Singh. 20. 20. The admission of Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv PW-7 in para-3D that the articles seized were neither weighed nor sealed at the place where the Tata Indica Car was intercepted and that the ganja was sealed after weighment is not corroborated by weighment panchnama Ex.P.8 which does not show that the weighed articles were sealed. It also renders seizure memo Ex.P -11 a highly doubtful document since it is shown that 28 bundles of ganja and 56 sample packets were seized in a sealed condition at Power House Bus Stand, Bhilai, in front of G.E. Road at 08.20 P.M. because M.K. Dhruv admitted that the articles were taken to the shop of Rajendra Paswan PW-3 for weighment at Tea Market, Old Chhawni and were sealed thereafter. 21. If the appellant Shivnath was driving the Indica Taxi of Ajay Mishra in which the driver Rane @ Ranjit employed by Ajay Mishra and Vijay Menon were also seated the complicity of Ajay Mishra for transporting the Ganja could not be ruled out. Be that as it may, the prosecution has failed to prove conscious possession of appellant Shivnath Shah or Vijay Menon over the contraband ganja hidden under the seats and inside the dicky of the Tata Indica Car owned by Ajay Mishra whose driver was Rane @ Ranjit. As per statement of Ajay Mishra to police, Ranjit, his driver had taken the Taxi to take his family members for a ride. Thus only two persons could have consciously known that Ganja was hidden in the Dicky and under the seats. They were Ajay Mishra, the owner and his driver Rane @ Ranjit. It is quite possible that Rane @ Ranjit Singh was the custodian of the goods being transported at the behest of the proprietor Ajay Mishra who went scot free since shielded by Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv PW -7. The manner in which M.K. Dhruv avoided arresting Rane @ Ranjit Singh in pursuance to a warrant of arrest and the manner in which after recording statement of Ajay Mishra he submitted his explanation is a clear pointer that M.K. Dhruv was shielding Ajay Mishra and his driver Rane @ Ranjit Singh. Conscious possession of Ganja could not be attributed to the appellant Shivnath Shah who was not the regular driver of the Tata Indica Car and Vijay Menon, the other occupant of the car. 22. Conscious possession of Ganja could not be attributed to the appellant Shivnath Shah who was not the regular driver of the Tata Indica Car and Vijay Menon, the other occupant of the car. 22. Strangely though, no question was asked in the examination under Section-313 of Cr.P.C. to the present appellants that they were the persons in possession of 28 bundles of Ganja hidden in the Tata Indica Taxi of Ajay Mishra. The object of examination under Section 313, it is well known, is to afford an opportunity to the accused to explain the circun1stances appearing in the evidence against him. It is unfortunate that no question was asked about the possession of goods. Having regard to the charge of which the appellants were accused, the failure to elicit their answer on such a crucial aspect as possession, is quite significant. In this state of things, it is not proper to raise a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act nor is it safe to conclude that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were in possession of 28 bundles of Ganja which was being carried in the vehicle. It is also pertinent to note that the charge framed against the appellants does not even mention that they were transporting the Ganja bundles in the Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No.C.G.-08/0139. Placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court in Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, in the facts and circumstances of the case the finding that the present appellants were in conscious possession of the 28 bundles of Ganja hidden in the Taxi of Ajay Mishrain which his driver Rane @ Ranjit was presenl, is unsustainable. 23. Having thus considered the evidence led by the prosecution in its entirety, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the appellants under Section-20 (B)(ii)(C) read with Section-8(C) of the Act beyond the shadow of doubt. Conviction of the appellants Shivnath Shall & Vijay Menon and the sentences awarded there under by the learned trial Judge are therefore liable to be set aside. 24. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Conviction of the appellant. Shivnath Shall & Vijay Menon under Section-20(B)(ii)(C) read with Section-8(C) of the Act and the sentences awarded there under by the learned trial Judge is set aside. 24. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Conviction of the appellant. Shivnath Shall & Vijay Menon under Section-20(B)(ii)(C) read with Section-8(C) of the Act and the sentences awarded there under by the learned trial Judge is set aside. The appellants are acquitted and shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. 25. Before parting this case, it is necessary to observe certain facts and to issue necessary directions. On 26-02-2005 challan was filed showing that Vijay Menon and Rane @ Ranjit Singh as absconding. Statement of Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv was recorded on the same day who requested for issuance of warrant of arrest against both. Warrant of arrest was issued against Vijay Menon and Rane @ Ranjit Singh. It is pertinent to note that on 18-03-2005 Sub Inspector M.K. Dhruv PW -7 appeared before the trial Court and returned only the warrant of arrest of Vijay Menon with the report that he was untraceable. No effort was made by him to arrest Rane @ Ranjit Singh. The learned trial Judge sought an explanation from Station House Officer, Police Station-Chhawni as to why the owner of Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No.C.G.-08/0139 was not prosecuted. Sub Inspector M.K.Dhruv PW-7 recorded the statement of Ajay Kumar Mishra, the owner of the said car that the said vehicle was being run as a taxi by his driver Rane @ Ranjiton 26-12-2004 who took the vehicle for taking his family members for a ride. It was stated that complicity of the owner of the vehicle was not borne out during investigation. The reply filed by Sub Inspector M.K.Dhruv to the notice issued by the learned trial Judge shows that besides recording the statement of Ajay Mishra, no effort was made to investigate into the complicity of Ajay Mishra for the crime. Learned trial Judge pursued the matter with diligence. On 23-02-2005, warrant of arrest of Rane @ Ranjit Singh was returned with a highly unsatisfactory endorsement that he was not available at his house. The vigilant learned trial Judge did not stop there. He recorded in the order sheet dated 23-02-2005 that the investigating officer was avoiding arrest of Rane @ Ranjit Singh and had given bog us explanation. On 23-02-2005, warrant of arrest of Rane @ Ranjit Singh was returned with a highly unsatisfactory endorsement that he was not available at his house. The vigilant learned trial Judge did not stop there. He recorded in the order sheet dated 23-02-2005 that the investigating officer was avoiding arrest of Rane @ Ranjit Singh and had given bog us explanation. He issued a memo to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg that serious irregularities were committed in the investigation of Crime No.167/2004 by the police and Sub Inspector M.K.Dhruv was trying to shield Ajay Mishra i.e the owner of Tata-Indica Car bearing Registration No.C.G.-08/0139. Another warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against Rane @Ranjit Singh on 22-03-2005. On 19-04-2005, it was noted by the learned trial Judge that warrant of arrest was not issued against Rane @ Ranjit Singh. He again directed issuance of warrant of arrest against Rane @ Ranjit Singh with a direction that in the event of non-service, the officer entrusted with the service of warrant, shall remain present before the Court. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge was transferred and unfortunately his successors did not bother to take any interest in the matter and proceeded on the assumption that Rane @ Ranjit Singh was absconding. Thus warrant bf arrest was in fact not issued thereafter against Rane @Ranjit Singh. In view of the above situation, it is directed that a fresh warrant of arrest be issued against Rane @ Ranjit Singh and be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Durg for compliance and for producing Rane @Ranjit Singh before the learned trial Judge on or before 22-09-2006. It is expected that the Superintendent of Police, Durg shall, under his personal supervision get the warrant of arrest executed and shall further direct a Senior Police Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police to further investigate the matter regarding complicity of Ajay Mishra i.e. the owner of Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No.C.G.-08/0139 in the aforesaid offence. After investigation, a supplementary challan may be filed. Two copies of this judgment shall be given today to the Govt. Advocate one for immediate onward transmission to the Superintendent of Police, Durg for compliance of the aforesaid directions within a month from today and another for onward transmission to the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh. After investigation, a supplementary challan may be filed. Two copies of this judgment shall be given today to the Govt. Advocate one for immediate onward transmission to the Superintendent of Police, Durg for compliance of the aforesaid directions within a month from today and another for onward transmission to the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh. This Court I hopes that strict disciplinary action will be initiated against Sub Inspector M.K.Dhruv because a Police Officer who while being entrusted with investigation into an offence under the Act involving deterrent punishment, shields the real culprits for his own vested interest should be severely dealt with. A report of the action taken, if any, shall be placed by the Registry before this Court within a month. Appeal Allowed.