Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd., Bathinda, lodged a complaint on 18.12.2012 at Police Station, Phul, District Bathinda against one Devraj Miglani which was registered as FIR No.91/2012 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with the allegations that Devraj had misappropriated paddy worth Rs.4.18 crores. It is alleged that some conversation also took place between Devraj and his niece Ritu through the mobile phone of Head Constable Kikkar Singh.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/dispute-over-land-ownership-and-partition-courts-legal-analysis/
After due enquiry which was carried out by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Janak Singh, it was found that the allegation against the Head Constable Kikkar Singh were prima facie made out and accordingly a First Information Report No.11 of 2013 was registered on 11.09.2013 at police station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda under Sections 166, 383, 385 IPC and also under the provisions of the PC Act.
The Trial Court, vide order dated 08.09.2016 rejected the said application on the ground of lack of sanction under the PC Act as also Cr.P.C. The said order of 05.03.2018 was challenged by the appellant before the High Court primarily on the following grounds by way of criminal revision: (i)
The order of the Trial Court was not in accordance to the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab for summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C.; (ii) It was a pressure tactic on the part of the informant Puneet Miglani to brow-beat the appellant as he had deposed against his father Devraj; SLP(Crl.) No 11654 of 2023 (iii) The informant Puneet Miglani was a convict in another case and, therefore, no reliance ought to have been placed on his statement; and lastly, (iv)
Subsequently, in the statement given on 29.09.2014, the allegation is that there was a demand of Rs.24 lakhs by the four officials which included one Deputy Superintendent of Police, SLP(Crl.) No 11654 of 2023 Janak Singh, the appellant and two other Head Constables viz.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/violation-of-judicial-discipline-case-summary/
but have not examined the merits of the matter as to whether the principles and parameters laid down in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) had been followed or whether the said ingredients were present before the Trial Court so as to justify the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Even Devraj and Eshaa Miglani in their statements recorded during investigation on 15.10.2013 and 22.10.2013 respectively, have given the same details as narrated by the informant Puneet Miglani on 22.09.2013. Since everything happened on the same day it is quite possible that the entire story from the time of surrender of Devraj could not have been mentioned but soon after that at the first instance the conduct of the appellant and the other police officials trying to extract money from Devraj and his family members was mentioned in detail by SLP(Crl.) No 11654 of 2023 all the witnesses. Informant PW 1 had given the same statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/adverse-possession-and-limitation-a-case-summary/
We may also place on record the fact that we are not threadbare discussing the testimony of the witness during the trial as it may ultimately influence the Trial Court at a later stage. (VIKRAM NATH)……………………………………J.
Case Title: GURDEV SINGH BHALLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB (2024 INSC 22)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000120-000120 / 2024
