Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 604 (HP)

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. KULJEET SINGH

2010-03-26

V.K.AHUJA

body2010
JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral)-This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class(2), Palampur dated 28.6.1995 acquitting the respondent of the charge framed against him under Sections 342,379,420 and 471 IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a written complaint was sent by Shri S.C. Kainthla, the then JMIC Palampur dated 8.9.1996 to the SHO, Police Station, Palampur. He alleged therein that a warrant was issued by the SDJM Palampur in respect of one Sham Lal and in pursuance of these warrants, which were issued by the SDJM, two persons namely, Sham Lal the accused against whom the warrant was issued as well as another person Rattan Chand were produced by Kuljit Singh Constable No.310 as well as Shadi Lal Constable No.285 on 6.9.1986. It was alleged therein that Rattan Chand was released by Shri Kainthla since he was wrongfully arrested and Constable Kuljit Singh was ordered to appear before the SDJM, Palampur for wrongfully arresting Rattan Chand against whom there was no warrant of arrest. It was alleged that it was not within his knowledge how Kuljit Singh Constable No.310 got possession of warrants as well as the order which was passed by him on 6.9.1986. The warrants as well the original order and notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C. which were issued to Sham Lal and Rattan Chand which were handed over to him by Constable Kuljit Singh at his residence on 7.9.1986 at about 10.00 A.M. and on perusal of the warrants, he found that the endorsement on one of the warrants in which it was reported that Rattan Chand has been arrested and has been produced before him on 6.9.1986, has been tampered with. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. The main ground taken by the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondents is that on similar facts, the respondent has been tried by the Court of learned CJM, Kangra and was acquitted under Section 29 of the Police Act. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. The main ground taken by the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondents is that on similar facts, the respondent has been tried by the Court of learned CJM, Kangra and was acquitted under Section 29 of the Police Act. It is clear from a perusal of the facts of the case that the Court at Palampur had issued only non-bailable warrants for Sham Lal Ex.PA and Ex.PB and notices under Section 446 Cr.P.C, were also issued against the surety Rattan Chand. The respondent while arresting Sham Lal also arrested Rattan Chand, the surety, for whom no warrant of arrest had been issued and notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C. only was issued against him. It is clear from the assertions made in the complaint filed by the then JMIC, Palampur that subsequently the respondent tampered with the evidence and mentioned that Rattan Chand was produced in pursuance of the warrant issued by the Court. On the same facts, the respondent has been tried and acquitted by the learned CJM, Kangra as per the copy of the Judgment Ex.D-1. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the learned CJM had tried the respondent on same facts and after appraisal of the evidence, he had acquitted the respondent and one Sham Lal and the said case was a complaint filed under Section 29 of the Police Act by the State. The record of the case does not show as to why the complaint was registered in that case and on what basis the same was filed but a perusal of the facts clearly shows that similar facts were alleged in the complaint filed before the CJM, Kangra and it is clear that the respondent could not have been tried for the offence with which he has been charged with by the JMIC, Palampur and tried for the same offences. The respondent cannot be tried twice on similar facts and as such the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondent cannot be said to be perverse calling for interference by this Court. 5. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. 6. 5. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. 6. It is, however, clarified that the State/S.P. Kangra is competent to initiate the proceedings against the respondent departmentally in accordance with law, if not already initiated.