Judgement Ranjan Gogoi, C J [1] Before delving into the issues arising in this suo motu writ petition, a brief conspectus of the relevant facts will be necessary. On 23.09.2002, Deputy Superintendent of the Punjab Police one Harjit Singh Brar had sent a statement (Ruqa) to the Station House Officer of the Police Station Raikot stating as follows :- “To the Officer In-charge, Police Station, Raikot Today I, DSP alongwith Mohinder Kumar SI/SHO, Police Station Raikot; Arvind Puri, SI/SHO Police Station Sudhar alongwith Police party in the investigation of case FIR No. 113 dated 06.09.2002 under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2)(88) PC Act, were present in the house of accused Gurcharan Singh and Gurmail Singh sons of Lal Singh Jat, resident of Pherurai and were searching his house when in the presence of Sarpanch Hardev Singh son of Gurcharan Singh Jat resident of Pherurai, Kartar Singh son of Ram Kishan and Tarlochan Singh son of Harbans Singh Jat resident of Pherurai, were conducting search of the house according to the procedure, when from one iron peti (big box), which was lying beneath the stair case, from the bedding kept therein one black plastic envelope, currency notes were recovered. On checking Rs. 1,50,000/- Indian currency and Rs. 5,20,000/- forged Indian Currency notes were recovered, which according to separate recovery memos, were taken into possession. Because accused Gurcharan Singh and Gurmail Singh have kept counterfeit Indian currency notes amounting to Rs. 5,20,000/-, they have committed an offence under Section 489 B, C of the IPC. Therefore, on the ruqa being sent by hand through Constable Jasbir Singh 381 a case be registered against them. After registration of the case, case No. be intimated. I, DSP alongwith companion Police Officials is busy at the spot in investigation. Sd/- Harjit Singh Brar DSP Raikot 23.09.2002 [2] On the basis of the aforesaid statement in writing sent to the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Case FIR No. 120 dated 23.09.2002 under Sections 489 (B) and (C) of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Raikot. On 11.10.2002, accused Gurmail Singh was arrested and on 22.10.2002, accused Gurcharan Singh was arrested. The accused Gurmail Singh made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which was recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Harjit Singh Brar. On 11.10.2002, accused Gurmail Singh was arrested and on 22.10.2002, accused Gurcharan Singh was arrested. The accused Gurmail Singh made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which was recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Harjit Singh Brar. Currency notes recovered were verified from the State Bank of Patiala, Raikot Branch and the Bank submitted a report to the effect that the currency notes amounting to Rs. 5,20,000/- are forged and counterfeit. Thereafter, the counterfeit currency was sent to the Government Printing Press, Nasik through one Sub Inspector of Police, Pal Singh. The aforesaid Sub Inspector who had sworn an affidavit had stated therein that he was handed over the counterfeit currency notes by Head Constable Sukhdev Singh on 02.12.2002; on 05.12.2002, he had deposited the currency notes at Nasik and on 08.12.2002, he had handed over the receipt regarding deposit of the counterfeit currency notes to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Harjit Singh Brar. [3] In the course of the investigation of the FIR, apart from the above, the statement of one Harjit Kaur was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein she stated that she is the neighbour of both the accused and five/six months back accused Gurmail Singh had come with a small bag and taking out the currency notes from the said bag he had said that the same is counterfeit currency and that he is going to purchase two buffalos with the said currency. In the said statement, it was further stated that the said accused had actually purchased two buffalos in the evening on that day. [4] The statement of one Hardev Singh, Sarpanch was also recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the course of the investigation of the case. According to Hardev Singh, Sarpanch, he was present alongwith the Police party in the house of the accused when the counterfeit currency was recovered from an iron box. [5] It will have to be noticed at this stage that in the course of investigation, statement of one Mohinder Kumar, Station House Officer, Police Station Raikot and that of Constable Jasbir Singh, Constable Tarsem Lal and Assistant Sub Inspector Mohammad Jamil were also recorded wherein they had clearly stated about the search, seizure and recovery of the currency which was subsequently found to be counterfeit. [6] At the conclusion of the investigation, challan was submitted under the provisions of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate on 16.12.2002. In the said challan, it was stated that offence under Sections 489 (B) and (C) of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the two accused. In the said challan, the following were cited as witnesses :- 1. Harjit Singh Brar, DSP, Raikot. 2. Mohinder Kumar, SI/SHO, Police Station, Raikot. 3. Sarpanch Hardev Singh son of Gurcharan Singh Jat, resident of Pherurai. 4. Kartar Singh son of Ram Kishan Jat, resident of Pherurai. 5. Tarlochan Singh son of Harbans Singh Jat, resident of Pherurai. 6. ASI Mohammad Jamil, Police Station Raikot. 7. C-II Tarsem Lal, No. 142 GM, DSP Raikot. 8. R.C. Sarwal, Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Branch Raikot. 9. C. Jasvir Singh No. 381, GM DSP Raikot. 10. ASI Jarnail Singh No. 260, Police Station Raikot. 11. Harjit Kaur widow of Malkiat Singh Jat, resident of Pherurai. 12. Tarlochan Singh Nambardar son of Santa Singh, resident of Gassuwala, Tehsil Rampuraphool (now resident of Rorikpura, Police Station Jaito). 13. ASI Pal Singh, Police Station Raikot. [7] On receipt of the challan, the learned Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Jagraon committed the case to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana for trial. On 31.01.2003, charges were framed against both the accused under Sections 489 (B) and (C) of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. Thereafter, this Court, by order dated 18.11.2003 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 48429 of 2003 directed that the case be transferred to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala, who may assign the same for trial to any other learned Additional Sessions Judge within his jurisdiction. [8] In the course of the trial, except for PW1 Pal Singh, all the prosecution witnesses who had made clear and categorical statements before the investigating authority implicating the two accused resiled from such statements. Consequently, all the prosecution witnesses except PW1 were declared hostile. [8] In the course of the trial, except for PW1 Pal Singh, all the prosecution witnesses who had made clear and categorical statements before the investigating authority implicating the two accused resiled from such statements. Consequently, all the prosecution witnesses except PW1 were declared hostile. P.W.2 Harjit Kaur and P.W.3 Hardev Singh (Sarpanch) as well as all the Police personnel who were examined by the prosecution i.e. Inspector Mohinder Kumar (PW4), Constable Jasbir Singh (PW5), Constable Tarsem Lal (PW6), Assistant Sub Inspector Jarnail Singh (PW7), Assistant Sub Inspector Mohammad Jamil (PW8), Deputy Superintendent of Police Harjit Singh, Investigating Officer (PW9) and R.C. Sarwal, Ex-Manager, State Bank of Patiala (PW10) resiled from their statements made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure implicating the two accused and had stated before the Court that during the search no currency (genuine or fake) was recovered. [9] At the conclusion of the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ambala by judgment and order dated 06.10.2007 acquitted the two accused. [10] Thereafter, it appears that a news item was published in the issue of the 'Hindustan Times' dated 14.11.2007 under the title "Fake currency witnesses resile as SSP Pherurai, brother walk free". Taking note of the aforesaid news item a learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order :- "Hindustan Times dated November 14, 2007 has published a news item titled "fake currency case witnesses resile as SSP Pherurai, brother walk free" revealing that G.S. Pherurai, Senior Superintendent of Police has been acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) working as Fast Track Court at Ambala. The news item would also show that G.S. Pherurai, SSP was prosecuted for being found in possession and for circulating fake currency in the market. Acquittal, as such, may not be a cause of much concern, but the manner in which this has come about, may be a matter of serious concern. Ten police witnesses examined by prosecution have turned hostile. Portion of their versions has been reproduced in the news paper, which may be disturbing feature of the case. They can clearly be seen hiding the truth to favour the accused/police officer. The trial Judge appears to have remained silent spectator and may be seen to have not performed his duties well. It is failure of justice. Allegation against the accused was of recovery of fake currency of Rs. They can clearly be seen hiding the truth to favour the accused/police officer. The trial Judge appears to have remained silent spectator and may be seen to have not performed his duties well. It is failure of justice. Allegation against the accused was of recovery of fake currency of Rs. five lacs, which was covered by various forms of media and displayed by way of photograph or by video on channels. It can either be a case of fake recovery or a unfair acquittal. Both aspects would need some looking into. I thought, it would be appropriate to bring this fact to the kind attention of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and accordingly I am sending this note alongwith photo copy of the news item published in Hindustan Times dated November 14, 2007 for kind perusal and orders considered appropriate. (RANJIT SINGH) JUDGE 16.11.2007 REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)” [11] It is on the basis of the aforesaid note that the present suo motu writ petition was directed to be registered. [12] The various issues arising in the writ petition and the relevant facts of the case were elaborately considered by a Division Bench of this Court on 25.04.2008. The order passed on the said date would go to show that after reciting the detailed facts and circumstances, the core of which have been extracted above, the Bench recorded that two conclusions can be drawn in the matter, namely, that the two accused were falsely implicated or that the witnesses were won over and such witnesses, for extraneous and ulterior purposes, did not support the prosecution case leading to the acquittal of the accused. In the said order dated 25.4.2008 the Bench recorded its prima facie view that offences under Sections 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 203, 211, 218 and 220 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against the prosecution witnesses examined in the case and that an enquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ought to have been conducted by the learned trial Court. On the basis of such enquiry a complaint ought to have been filed if the Court was to come to the conclusion that any of the offences under the aforesaid Sections of the Indian Penal Code had been committed. On the basis of such enquiry a complaint ought to have been filed if the Court was to come to the conclusion that any of the offences under the aforesaid Sections of the Indian Penal Code had been committed. [13] In so far as the conduct of the trial by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ambala is concerned, the Division Bench recorded the following observations/tentative conclusions :- "The learned trial Court in such a case, ought to have taken recourse under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. As to why recourse to these provisions was not taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ambala is beyond our comprehension. We are amazed at the inaction on the part of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ambala. Even enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. can also be conducted after the conclusion of trial." [14] In so far as the conduct of the officials of the State Government is concerned, the Division Bench observed as follows :- "We are also of the considered opinion that there is a total inaction on the part of the DGP Punjab and Home Secretary to take corrective measures when responsible officers of their offices have resiled from their statements in the Court. We are of the view that there is a total breach of rule of law. If the official witnesses had falsely implicated the accused (one of them was SSP), what was the hesitation on the part of the authorities to dispense with the services of such kind of officers, who had falsely implicated the accused, otherwise, if the accused were rightly found to have committed the offence during investigation, then as to why the witnesses have resiled in the Court of law, should be a matter of grave concern for the authorities of the State of Punjab." [15] Thereafter, the Division Bench directed that notices be issued to PW2 Harjit Kaur, PW3 Sarpanch Hardev Singh, PW4 Inspector Mohinder Kumar, PW5 Constable Jasbir Singh, PW6 Constable Tarsem Lal, PW7 Assistant Sub Inspector Jarnail Singh, PW8 Assistant Sub Inspector Mohammad Jamil, PW9 Harjit Singh Brar, Deputy Superintendent of Police and PW10 R.C. Sarwal, Ex- Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Raikot and fixed the case on 23.05.2008 for further consideration. [16] Pursuant to the notices issued in terms of the Court order dated 25.04.2008, affidavits of Assistant Sub Inspector Mohammad Jamil (PW8), Assistant Sub Inspector Jarnail Singh (PW 7), Constable Tarsem Lal (PW6), Constable Jasbir Singh (PW5), Deputy Superintendent of Police Harjit Singh Brar (PW9) and Inspector Mohinder Kumar (PW4) were filed in Court. The two accused also filed their affidavit alongwith that of R.C. Sarwal, Ex-Manager, State Bank of Patiala (PW10), the Public Prosecutor, Fast Track Court, Ambala, the Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs as well as Director General of Police, Punjab. [17] By an elaborate order dated 04.07.2008, the Division Bench of this Court considered the affidavit by R.C. Sarwal, Ex- Manager, State Bank of Patiala wherein it was stated that the aforesaid person was summoned by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana on 20.06.2008 and was produced before a Committee consisting of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Superintendent of Police and District Attorney, Ludhiana. According to the Bank Manager, he had informed the Committee about the authenticity of his statement with regard to verification of currency notes of the value of Rs. 5,20,000/- which were found to be forged. The Bank Manager also stated in his affidavit that he was threatened not to make any statement in support of the letter of the bank dated 24.09.2002 (containing the aforesaid statement) that the currency notes were forged. He had also stated in his affidavit that he was threatened by accused G.S. Pherurai on 29.09.2007 at about 10.15 AM outside the Court room. [18] The affidavit filed before the Court by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Harjit Singh Brar, (PW9) indicates that on 22/23.08.2007, one Balkar Singh Sidhu, Superintendent of Police, Vigilance had called him and Inspector Mohinder Kumar (PW4) to his office and informed them that there were strict orders that the witnesses had to turn hostile in Case FIR No. 120. Balkar Singh Sidhu, Superintendent of Police, Vigilance also informed them that they will have to face dire consequences including vigilance enquiry, CID enquiry and dismissal from service if the instructions are not followed. Balkar Singh Sidhu, Superintendent of Police, Vigilance also informed them that they will have to face dire consequences including vigilance enquiry, CID enquiry and dismissal from service if the instructions are not followed. In the said affidavit of Harjit Singh Brar, it is further stated that on 04.10.2007, Balkar Singh Sidhu, Superintendent of Police, Vigilance again called him in his office and in the said office he i.e. Harjit Singh Brar had met one Mukhwinder Singh Chhina, AIG Intelligence, who was posted as Senior Superintendent of Police, Jagraon in the year 2002. According to DSP, Harjit Singh Brar, the aforesaid officer had repeated the threat. In the aforesaid affidavit, it is further stated that on 05.10.2007, at about 10.00/11.00 AM, when he reached the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Jagraon, one Gurjit Singh Romana, Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Ludhiana (Rural) met him in the presence of the two accused and he was informed by Superintendent of Police, Gurjit Singh Romana, that he should not support the case of the prosecution. [19] Alongwith the affidavit, Harjit Singh Brar, Deputy Superintendent of Police had annexed letters dated 26.06.2008 addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana; letter dated 27.06.2008 addressed to the Director General of Police, Punjab and letter dated 27.06.2008 addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana. He had further stated that apart from himself the letter dated 27.6.2008 to the Director General of Police was signed by Inspector, Mohinder Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector, Jarnail Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Mohammad Jamil, Head Constable, Tarsem Lal and Constable, Jasbir Singh. The following extract from the letter dated 27.06.2008 which is on the record of the present proceeding may be usefully extracted herein-below :- "....Gurcharan Singh Pherurai has also connived with Sh. Narinder Pal Singh, DSP, Raikot to put pressure on the police officials and private persons including applicants since Narinder Pal Singh, DSP had worked under Gurcharan Singh Pherurai, when he was posted as SSP at Ferozepur, Gurcharan Singh Pherurai and Narinder Pal Singh, DSP instigating and conspiring to some people for giving false affidavits against the applicants so that they may be falsely implicated in a false case. DSP Narinder Pal Singh and Gurcharan Singh Pherurai on the night of 25.06.2008 and 26.06.2008 summoned ASI Mohammad Jamil and detained him for two hours and put pressure upon him to give statement in favour of Gurcharan Singh Pherurai and against the higher police officer. Gurcharan Singh Pherurai and Narinder Pal Singh, DSP, Raikot also threatened ASI Mohammad Jamil that Gurcharan Singh Pherurai have links with higher killers (Gurdas) and they can harm to ASI Mohammad Jamil. Similar threats have been given to all the applicants with life, liberty, property and service of the applicants and their family members are not saved at present..." [20] The affidavits filed before the court by Md.Jamil (PW8), Jarnail Singh, ASI (PW7), Tarsem Lal, HC (PW6), Jasbir Singh, Constable (PW5) and Mohinder Kumar, Inspector (PW4) indicate that all the aforesaid witnesses were threatened/intimidated by high police officials not to support the version narrated by them in the course of investigation and, in fact, to narrate in Court a version favouring/supporting the accused. [21] This Court by its order dated 04.07.2008 desired to know from the Director General of Police, Punjab and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana what action had been taken on the representations/letters addressed to the concerned officers, the facts stated wherein find further support in the affidavits filed before this Court. [22] The order dated 04.07.2008 also contains the displeasure of the Court with regard to the actions of the State in constituting a three member Committee on 22.05.2008 "to look into all the aspects relating to resiling of prosecution witnesses" the report of which committee dated 28.06.2008 was placed before the Court alongwith an affidavit of Shri N.P.S. Aulakh, Director General of Police, Punjab. However, the aforesaid matter was not pursued any further in as much as the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing in the case had prayed for some time to seek instructions in the matter. Whether the report dated 28.6.2008 had formed the basis of any further action by the State is not known. In any event, the said aspect of the matter would not be very relevant to the issues that are now before the Court. [23] At this stage, the contents of the affidavits filed by PW2 Harjit Kaur and PW3 Hardev Singh, Sarpanch as well as the two accused before this Court in the present proceeding may be noted. In any event, the said aspect of the matter would not be very relevant to the issues that are now before the Court. [23] At this stage, the contents of the affidavits filed by PW2 Harjit Kaur and PW3 Hardev Singh, Sarpanch as well as the two accused before this Court in the present proceeding may be noted. [24] PW2 and PW3, in their affidavits, had supported the statements made by them before the Court in the course of the trial. The said statements, as already noticed, are in departure to what they had stated before the Police in the course of the investigation. [25] In so far as the two accused are concerned the stand taken in the joint affidavit filed before the Court in the present proceeding is that they are victims of vendetta and wholly unjustified actions on the part of the then government. The two accused, in their affidavit, have given the details of several other cases which were launched against them by the then government and the details of the numerous occasions on which their residence was searched by the Police. According to the accused, the entire story is false and fabricated and no recovery of any currency much less counterfeit currency was made. Some currency notes were obtained by the Police from various sources and displayed to the press as having been recovered from the residence of the accused. According to the accused, the statements made by the witnesses in Court, including the Police witnesses, revealed the correct facts and any contrary statement(s) by the said accused, at any point of time, is the result of threat, intimidation and coercive action against such witnesses. [26] There is another aspect of the matter which would require to be noticed by us before we proceed any further in the matter. Notice must be had to an order of this Court dated 31.07.2008 passed in the present proceeding by which the explanations offered on behalf of the State that there was no intention on the part of the State to reinvestigate the matter was accepted and the Court granted permission for holding of an enquiry to find out as to "whether witnesses in the first instance deposed falsely or they resiled at the time of trial under some pressure". Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the Inspector General of Police, Zone-I, Punjab and report dated 30.10.2008 was submitted to the Court containing the following findings :- "From the open and secret enquiry into the matter, statements of the various witnesses, official record perused in this matter and from the brief discussion made above, the following conclusions can be drawn :- A. The witnesses, Police as well as private, have resiled in the trial Court from their earlier statements made during the course of investigation of the case. B. In the reasons given by the police witnesses for their resiling, it is amply clear that Sh. Gurcharan Singh Pherurai, has the resources to influence the witnesses of the case. C. From the call details of the witnesses and police officers who called them, it is clear that the witnesses were influenced to help the accused. As the police witnesses were recalled by Vigilance officers, despite the fact they were not facing any corruption case or vigilance enquiry. D. It has also come on record from the call details that Sh. G.S. Romana, SP and Sh. Narinder Pal Singh, DSP/Raikot were in close touch with the accused of the case, during the month of September, 2007 and first week of October, 2007. The timing and long duration of calls caste aspersions on their role in influencing the witnesses. E. The call details of the police witnesses show that they were called by the accused before their evidence in the Court, whereas there was no reason for accused to call the witnesses except influencing the witnesses of the case. F. Four police witnesses were taken to the District Courts, Ambala by the accused a day before the actual evidence also goes on to indicate that they were made to understand regarding the manner in which they would have to depose in the Court on the following date. G. The processing of summons in this case is also erratic. H. The way of parwai of the case as handled also shows that the Jagraon Police tried to help the accused. I. The fact that Public Prosecutor wrote again the police witnesses after passage of one and a half month after the decision of the case i.e. 22.11.2007. He wrote this only after the Hon'ble High Court has taken the cognizance in this case, also indicate towards his intention in this case. I. The fact that Public Prosecutor wrote again the police witnesses after passage of one and a half month after the decision of the case i.e. 22.11.2007. He wrote this only after the Hon'ble High Court has taken the cognizance in this case, also indicate towards his intention in this case. He should have informed the concerned quarters immediately when the first police witness turned hostile. From the points mentioned above it is clear that the police witnesses in this case FIR No. 120 dated 23.9.2007 U/S 489-B/489-C IPS, PS Raikot seems to have been influenced at the instance of the accused in this case as one of the accused, Sh. Gurcharan Singh Pherurai former SSP is an influential person. But no cogent and unrebuttable evidence has come on record to prove that they were pressurised to become hostile. Had any such pressure was used they should have approached their senior officers for remedial measures, which they did not do for the reasons best known to them. As a matter of fact a criminal case regarding recovery of fake currency from the accused was registered, investigated and sent to the trial Court for judicial verdict. It was the prime duty of the witnesses of the case to have stated truth in the Court. They have not performed this duty in the right earnest. Therefore, also keeping in view the mandate of Hon'ble High Court, the undersigned recommends that all the six police witnesses of this case should be dealt with departmentally in accordance with letter written by learned Public Prosecutor, Ambala dated 22.11.2007. (C.S.R.Reddy, IPS) Inspector General of Police, Zone-I, Punjab, Patiala.” [27] From the discussions that have preceded, it is clear and evident that in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. all the witnesses examined by the prosecution (PW1 to PW10) had implicated the two accused in the offence under Section 489 (B) and (C) of the Indian Penal Code. Such statements were with regard to the recovery of currency notes from the residence of the two accused which were subsequently found, on examination, to be counterfeit currency. Such statements were with regard to the recovery of currency notes from the residence of the two accused which were subsequently found, on examination, to be counterfeit currency. In the trial against the two accused, except for PW1, all other witnesses including the police officials who were examined by the prosecution had resiled from their statements made under section 161 Cr.P.C. and had stated that no recovery of currency notes, much less any counterfeit currency notes, was made in their presence. The involvement of the accused persons as narrated by the prosecution witnesses during investigation were disowned by them in their depositions in the Court. All such witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution and a acting on the basis of the testimony of the hostile witnesses the learned trial Court acquitted both the accused. [28] Thereafter, in response to the notices directed to be issued by this Court to all the aforesaid prosecution witnesses (except PW1) by its order dated 25.4.2008, affidavits have been filed by PW5, PW6, PW7, PW8, PW9 and PW10 to the effect that what was stated by them before the Investigating Officer was the true and correct version of the occurrence and that they were compelled to resile from the aforesaid statement(s) due to threat, intimidation and coercion of the senior/high-ranking police officials, particulars of whom were also mentioned in the affidavits filed. Furthermore, in the affidavit filed by PW9-DSP, Harjit Singh Brar, it is mentioned that the reasons for which the prosecution witnesses were compelled to depose in a different manner in Court were brought to the notice of the high ranking police officials of the State by way of representations addressed to such officials including a representation dated 27.6.2008 submitted to the Director General of Police of the State. The report of the Inspector General of Police, Zone-I, Punjab dated 30.10.2008 referred to hereinabove also indicates that the witnesses were prevailed upon/influenced by and/or at the behest of the accused. [29] A close and careful scrutiny of the above facts would indicate that PW4 to PW10 had admitted in their affidavits before this Court that the versions narrated by them in the course of investigation are the correct versions of the occurrence and that the alteration of the said versions in the course of their depositions in Court is the outcome of the threat, intimidation, coercion, etc. meted out to the witnesses by high-ranking police officials of the State. The somewhat different stand taken by PW2-Harjit Kaur and PW3- Sarpanch Hardev singh (independent witnesses), according to us, will not affect the versions stated by PW4 to PW10 in their affidavits as the aforesaid versions of PW4 to PW10 find due support from a contemporaneous document i.e. representation dated 27.6.2008 addressed to the Director General of Police, Punjab; the report dated 30.10.2008 of the Inspector General of Police, Zone- I, Punjab would also point to the same conclusion. [30] This will bring the Court to a consideration of what would be the primary issue in the case, viz., legality of the trial in which the two accused have been acquitted. If the Court is to go by the version narrated by PW4 to PW10 before this Court and also in the contemporaneous documents, as referred to earlier, viz, representation dated 27.6.2008 addressed to the Director General of Police and the report of the Inspector General of Police, Zone-I, Punjab dated 30.10.2008, the trial against the accused persons is a travesty of justice and opposed to the basic canons of criminal jurisprudence. All the official witnesses examined by the prosecution had resiled from their earlier statements implicating the accused in the offence alleged. The police witnesses who had reportedly recovered the counterfeit currency from the residence of the accused and the bank manager who had opined that the seized currency was counterfeit did not support the prosecution case in Court. However, the said witnesses had subsequently filed separate affidavits before this Court stating that they were compelled to resile from their earlier statements on account of adverse action threatened against them by the high- ranking police officials. Such witnesses have also stated before this Court that they were told to make statements in Court which would favour the accused. Accordingly, PW4 to PW10 had deposed contradicting to their earlier versions and were declared hostile. The trial Judge had remained a mute spectator in a scenario where, one by one, all the prosecution witnesses were turning hostile. The learned Judge conducted himself as if, under the law, he was obliged to remain silent and consider only the versions narrated by the prosecution witnesses in Court and on that basis he was left with no option but to acquit the accused. The learned Judge conducted himself as if, under the law, he was obliged to remain silent and consider only the versions narrated by the prosecution witnesses in Court and on that basis he was left with no option but to acquit the accused. The manner in which the trial was conducted leaves no doubt in our minds that the whole process was tainted and the outcome thereof was wholly detrimental to the Rule of law which the Court is duty bound to uphold. The casualty of the entire process, which can be characterized as perverse, is the justice delivery system resulting in enormous loss of public confidence which is vital to the sound health and even for the survival of the system of dispensation of justice. In the above facts, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) and another v. State of Gujarat and others, 2006 2 RCR(Cri) 448 would squarely apply and, therefore, the relevant observations contained in the judgment are extracted hereinbelow :- "30. Right from the inception of the judicial system it has been accepted that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying existence of Courts of justice. The operative principles for a fair trial permeate the common law in both civil and criminal contexts. Application of these principles involves a delicate judicial balancing of competing interests in a criminal trial, the interests of the accused and the public and to a great extent that of the victim have to be weighed not losing sight of the public interest involved in the prosecution of persons who commit offences. ... ... ... .. 33. The principle of fair trial now informs and energizes many areas of the law. It is reflected in numerous rules and practices. It is a constant, ongoing development process continually adapted to new and changing circumstances, and exigencies of the situation - peculiar at times and related to the nature of crime, persons involved - directly or operating behind, social impart and societal needs and even so many powerful balancing factors which may come in the way of administration of criminal justice system. ... ... ... .. ....... 35. ... ... ... .. ....... 35. This Court has often emphasised that in a criminal case the fate of the proceedings cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties, crime being public wrong in breach and violation of public rights and duties, which affect the whole community as a community and are harmful to the society in general. The concept of fair trial entails familiar triangulation of interests of the accused, the victim and the society and it is the community that acts through the State and prosecuting agencies. Interests of society is not to be treated completely with disdain and as persona non grata. Courts have always been considered to have an over-riding duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice - often referred to as the duty to vindicate and uphold the 'majesty of the law'. Due administration of justice has always been viewed as a continuous process, not confined to determination of the particular case, protecting its ability to function as a Court of law in the future as in the case before it. If a criminal Court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the Presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine by becoming a participant in the trial evincing intelligence, active interest and elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion, to find out the truth, and administer justice with fairness and impartiality both to the parties and to the community it serves. Courts administering criminal justice cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that has occurred in relation to proceedings, even if a fair trial is still possible, except at the risk of undermining the fair name and standing of the judges as impartial and independent adjudicators. 36. The principles of rule of law and due process are closely linked with human rights protection. Such rights can be protected effectively when a citizen has recourse to the Courts of law. It has to be unmistakably understood that a trial which is primarily aimed at ascertaining the truth has to be fair to all concerned. There can be no analytical, all comprehensive or exhaustive definition of the concept of a fair trial, and it may have to be determined in seemingly infinite variety of actual situations with the ultimate object in mind viz. There can be no analytical, all comprehensive or exhaustive definition of the concept of a fair trial, and it may have to be determined in seemingly infinite variety of actual situations with the ultimate object in mind viz. whether something that was done or said either before or at the trial deprived the quality of fairness to a degree where a miscarriage of justice has resulted. It will not be correct to say that it is only the accused who must be fairly dealt with. That would be turning a Nelson's eye to the needs of the society at large and the victims or their family members and relatives. Each one has an inbuilt right to be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society. Fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial Judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated. If the witnesses get threatened or are forced to give false evidence that also would not result in a fair trial. The failure to hear material witnesses is certainly denial of fair trial. 37. A criminal trial is a judicial examination of the issues in the case and its purpose is to arrive at a judgment on an issue as to a fact or relevant facts which may lead to the discovery of the fact issue and obtain proof of such facts at which the prosecution and the accused have arrived by their pleadings; the controlling question being the guilt or innocence of the accused. Since the object is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities, and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent, and punish the guilty. The proof of charge which has to be beyond reasonable doubt must depend upon judicial evaluation of the totality of the evidence, oral and circumstantial, and not by an isolated scrutiny. ... ... ... .. 40. "Witnesses" as Bentham said: are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence, the importance and primary of the quality of trial process. The proof of charge which has to be beyond reasonable doubt must depend upon judicial evaluation of the totality of the evidence, oral and circumstantial, and not by an isolated scrutiny. ... ... ... .. 40. "Witnesses" as Bentham said: are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence, the importance and primary of the quality of trial process. If the witness himself is incapacitated from acting as eyes and ears of justice, the trial gets putrefied and paralysed, and it no longer can constitute a fair trial. The incapacitation may be due to several factors, like the witness being not in a position for reasons beyond control to speak the truth in the Court or due to negligence or ignorance or some corrupt collusion." [31] Applying the above parameters of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and having regard to our findings in the present case, there can be no two opinions that the trial of the two accused Gurcharan singh and Gurmel Singh in Sessions Case No. 2 of 16.1.2003/18.4.2004 in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ambala and the judgment of acquittal dated 6.10.2007 passed therein are wholly unacceptable being exercises determined by forces that have no room in an acceptable system of jurisprudence. [32] We are conscious of the fact that in the present case we are essentially exercising our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and we are not acting as an appellate court under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question that will, therefore, arise is the availability of the writ power to deal with the situation and to issue necessary and appropriate directions in the matter. [33] The power under Article 226 of the Constitution is incapable of a precise definition as to its contours and extent. The jurisdiction under Article 226 may require a severely circumscribed exercise in a given case though, in another, the use of the power could be wide and expansive. The extent to which the writ power is to be exercised will depend upon the facts of a given case, though the ultimate objective of such exercise would always be to secure justice and to strike at injustice. The Courts, therefore, will have to rise to the occasion or else they may fail as the learned trial Court did in the present case. The Courts, therefore, will have to rise to the occasion or else they may fail as the learned trial Court did in the present case. In a situation where the trial held against the two accused clearly depicts monstrous perversities and gross abuse of process of law and yet no appeal against the acquittal of the two accused had been preferred, the Court can remain a passive onlooker only at the cost of being faulted by posterity. The exercise of the writ jurisdiction to interfere with the verdict of a criminal trial must, therefore, be made. New paths will have to be chartered and innovations made to deal with the myriad situations that may arise from time to time. [34] Accordingly, we declare the trial against the two accused to be wholly vitiated and, therefore, nonest in law. The acquittal of the two accused is set aside. We further order and direct that the two accused, namely, Gurcharan Singh and Gurmel Singh be retried by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala and such retrial be completed within a period of four months from date of receipt of this order by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala. [35] The next point for determination in the case is the remedial action that will now have to be initiated to redress the situation that had arisen in the trial on account of the conduct of the witnesses in resiling from their earlier statements implicating the accused. It is a tribute to the lawmakers that the possibility of such abuses and perversities had been foreseen and visualized and suitable provisions in the Penal Code had been made to counteract such situations. Adequate provisions of law exist whereby the tendering of false evidence as well as threats and intimidation to any person to give false evidence have been made penal offences i.e. Sections 193 and 195 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. A distinct procedure to deal with such offences when committed in relation to a proceeding in a Court are dealt with by specific provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure i.e. Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. Naturally, the aforesaid provisions of law will now have to govern the situation. A distinct procedure to deal with such offences when committed in relation to a proceeding in a Court are dealt with by specific provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure i.e. Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. Naturally, the aforesaid provisions of law will now have to govern the situation. [36] Accordingly, we direct the Presiding Officer of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court Ambala to file a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before a Court of competent jurisdiction highlighting the illegalities that had occurred in the course of trial of Sessions Case No. 2 of 16.1.2003/18.4.2004 by that Court. We further direct that in the course of the trial of such offences, as may be registered on the basis of the complaint to be filed by the Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court, Ambala, the role played by any functionary of the State in pressurizing the prosecution witnesses to give false evidence, shall also be inquired into in the event any material to the said effect is laid before the learned court. The trial court will conduct the said inquiry/trial expeditiously and bring the same to its logical conclusion at the earliest. In any case, the said trial shall be completed within a period of six month from today. [37] Accordingly we dispose of the suo motu writ petition registered as a PIL as well as CWP No. 8707 of 2008 filed by Gurcharan Singh Pherurai, etc. in the above terms. Petition disposed.