Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 383 (TS)

B. Tirupathi Reddy v. State Of Telangana

2020-03-16

G.SRI DEVI

body2020
JUDGMENT G. Sri Devi, J. - The present Criminal Petition is filed, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to expunge the unsavory comments made against the petitioner in the order, dated 21.01.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2019 in S.C.No.68 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a case in Crime No.254 of 2013 was registered by the Police, Mudigonda Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of I.P.C. Initially P.W.33-Sub-Inspector of Police conducted investigation in the above crime and he recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 5. Subsequently, the petitioner-Inspector of Police took over the investigation from P.W.33. Since it is a case of murder, P.W.33, after obtaining instructions from the petitioner, filed a Memo for alteration of Section of law before the learned Magistrate and altered the Sections from 304-A and 337 of I.P.C. to Sections 302, 307, 120-B and 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioner, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet in the case. After filing of charge sheet and commencement of trial, the petitioner having realized that Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses recorded by P.W.33 i.e., L.Ws.1 to 6 were not part of the record, filed Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2019 in S.C.No.68 of 2016 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, seeking permission to file the said 161 Cr.P.C. statements of L.Ws.1 to 6. The learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 21.01.20220, allowed the said petition permitting the prosecution to bring on record the statements of L.Ws.1 to 6. However, the learned Sessions Judge made certain comments against the petitioner herein that there is gross indifference and negligence on the part of the petitioner-Inspector of Police in dealing with serious offence of murder and imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner and also issued a direction to the Commissioner of Police, Khammam, for initiating appropriate action against the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the same, the petitionerInspector of Police filed the present Criminal Petition. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that imposition of costs on the petitioner is not only illegal but also contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in Manish Dixit and others v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 1 SCC 596 . 3. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that imposition of costs on the petitioner is not only illegal but also contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in Manish Dixit and others v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 1 SCC 596 . He further submits that the petitioner has put in 24 years of service in the police department with spotless career and he is considered as an officer with integrity in all those areas where he discharged his duty as a police officer. He further submits that the unsavory comments made by the learned Sessions Judge and imposing costs on the petitioner shall have severe bearing on the career of the petitioner and that the petitioner still has 10 years of service and as such the said comments and imposition of costs would mar the future of the petitioner. 5. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan and Anr., 2011 12 SCC 689 the Supreme Court observed as under: "13. The cardinal principle of the administration of justice requires for proper freedom and independence of Judges and such independence must be maintained and Judges must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fairly and without undue interference by anybody, even by this Court. However, it is also equally important that in expressing their opinions the Judges must be guided by consideration of justice, fair play and restraint. It should not be frequent that sweeping generalizations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. Thus, it is relevant to consider: (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. 14. xxxxxxx 15. Thus, the law on the issue emerges to the effect that the court may not be justified in making adverse remarks/passing strictures against a person unless it is necessary for the disposal of the case to animadvert to those aspects in regard to the remarks that have been made. 14. xxxxxxx 15. Thus, the law on the issue emerges to the effect that the court may not be justified in making adverse remarks/passing strictures against a person unless it is necessary for the disposal of the case to animadvert to those aspects in regard to the remarks that have been made. The adverse remarks should not be made lightly as it may seriously affect the character, competence and integrity of an individual in purported desire to render justice to the other party." 6. In the instant case in para Nos.17 and 22 of the order, the learned Judge made the following remarks against the petitioner: "As seen from the contents of charge sheet, the investigating officer, who filed the charge sheet, was supplied with prior material pertaining to investigation done by P.W.33. He has no valid explanation for not filing the material which was collected in the course of investigation done by P.W.33. He claimed that he could not file those documents inadvertently. It shows there is gross indifference and negligence on the part of L.W.37 in dealing with serious offence of murder. The investigation was handed over to the officer of rank of Inspector with hope that he would be more experienced and he would do the better investigation than the SubInspector and such hopes were shattered by negligently dealing with the serious offence of murder. 18. to 21: xxxxxx 22. i. xxxxx ii. The petition is allowed on costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable by L.W.37/B.Tirupathi Reddy. iii. The copy of this order may be sent to the Commissioner of Police, Khammam, for proper action against L.W.37/B.Tirupathi Reddy." 7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner categorically stated that initially the crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of I.P.C. against the driver of lorry bearing No. AP 16 TY 4784. P.W.33-the Sub Inspector of Police, recorded 161 Cr.P.C. statements of L.Ws.1 to 5. L.W.5 in his statement stated that the brothers of his son-in-law, with their common intention hatched a plan to kill him and his son-in-law Morthala Nagi Reddy by hitting with a lorry to show that it was a road accident in order to screen the evidence. Basing on the said statement, P.W.33 filed alteration memo and handed over the C.D. File to the petitioner. Basing on the said statement, P.W.33 filed alteration memo and handed over the C.D. File to the petitioner. After receiving the C.D. File, the petitioner secured the presence of P.Ws.1 to 4, examined and re-recorded their statements. But at the time of filing charge sheet, inadvertently he could not file the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of L.WS.1 to 6, recorded by P.W.33 and non-filing of those statements is neither intentional nor wanton. 8. In Manish Dixit case (1 supra) the Apex Court observed as under: "this Court has repeatedly cautioned that before any castigating remarks are made by the Court against any person, particularly when such remarks could ensue serious consequences on the future career of the person concerned, he should have been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of the proposed remarks or strictures. Such an opportunity is the basic requirement, for otherwise the offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice ." 9. In the present case also the petitioner is still having 10 years of service and he was not afforded any opportunity before passing the above remarks, which would affect serious consequences on his future career. Therefore, in the absence of such an opportunity, the remarks passed by the learned Sessions Judge would certainly ensued serious consequences on the future career of the petitioner. The opportunity which is the basic requirement was not afforded to the petitioner. Therefore, recording of the offending remarks in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge would fall within the ambit of violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the remarks passed by the learned Sessions Judge deserve to be expunged. 10. In light of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the present Criminal Petition is allowed and the directions/remarks/strictures passed against the present petitioner in the impugned order are hereby quashed and set aside. 11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.