Skip to content


Smt. Piaro Bai Vs. Karnail Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1984CriLJ57
AppellantSmt. Piaro Bai
RespondentKarnail Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
.....sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply..........of the respondents. a warrant officer appointed by this court to search for the detenu at police station sidhwan bet has reported that when he reached the police station on 27th august, 1983 at 11.55 a.m., kuldip singh, moharrir head constable on duty, could not show him any entry in the roznamcha of the police station pertaining to the detenu, though the detenu was confined in a room on the right side of the main door of the police station'. the said mohair head constable told the warrant officer that no case had been registered against the detenu and that the said detenu had been brought to the police station by a. s. i. karnail singh. the warrant officer then recorded the statement of the detenu which is part of the file. in that statement the detenu alleged that he had been.....
Judgment:
ORDER

M.M. Punchhi, J.

1. This petition for habeas corpus was filed by a widow to get released her son Bagga Singh son of Gurdit Singh from the illegal detention of the respondents. A Warrant Officer appointed by this Court to search for the detenu at Police Station Sidhwan Bet has reported that when he reached the Police Station on 27th August, 1983 at 11.55 a.m., Kuldip Singh, Moharrir Head Constable on duty, could not show him any entry in the roznamcha of the Police Station pertaining to the detenu, though the detenu was confined in a room on the right side of the main door of the Police Station'. The said Mohair Head Constable told the Warrant Officer that no case had been registered against the detenu and that the said detenu had been brought to the Police Station by A. S. I. Karnail Singh. The Warrant Officer then recorded the statement of the detenu which is part of the file. In that statement the detenu alleged that he had been brought by A. S. I. Karnail Singh. Vijay Kumar and Surinder Kumar Constables on 21st August. 1983 from his village and since then he stood confined in the lock up. He further stated that he was given severe beating by Surinder Kumar, constable. In the meantime. Sh. Gurkirpal Singh S. H. O. Police Station came there and he also could not point out any case to the Warrant Officer in which the detenu was required. The S. H. O. of course, admitted before him that a. S. I. Karnaii Singh had brought the detenu. A. S. I. Karnail Singh as also Vijay Kumar and Surinder Kumar, Constables were stated to be out on official duty and were not present at the police Station.

2. Reply has been put in by A.S.I. Karnail Singh. According to him, F. I. R. No. 51 dated 13-2-1982 stood registered ,at the Police station relating to a blind murder committed by unknown persons. The investigation statedly was with C. I. A. Inspector Ajit Singh. The said Inspector on 21st Aug. 1983 statedly wrote in the case diary that the detenu be associated in the investigation. Further, A. S. I. Karnail Singh has countered that he had, deputed two respectables of the area. namely, Jit Singh and Gurdev Singh Zaildar to produce the detenu before him. He was statedly produced before him at Jagraon but since he was busy in the checking of challans, on his direction those respectables had taken the detenu to Police Station Sidhwan Bet when the Warrant Officer raided the Police Station. There are supportive affidavits of Jit Singh and Gurdev Singh Zaildar to that effect.

3. As is patently clear, there is great divergence of version between the police officers regarding the presence of the detenu at the Police Station. All the Police Officers, who were immediately present at the police- Station when the Warrant Officer raided the premises, were categoric that the detenu had been brought by A. S. I. Karnail Singh to the Police Station. None of them ever stated before the Warrant Officer that the detenu had been sent by A. S. I. Karnail Singh through any such respectables. The said two respectables, who have claimed to be at the police Station at the time of the visit of the Warrant Officer, did not show their faces even to him to claim that they had brought the detenu to the Police, Station, a short while earlier.

4. I have questioned Shri Gurkirpal Singh. S. H. O. who is present, in Court as to whether there is any entry in the roznamcha regarding transfer , of that blind murder case from C.I. A investigation to Police. Station Sidhwan Bet. He frankly admitted that there is no such entry. The said S. H. O. has not even owned that the said file, ever passed through has hands from the C. I. A. to A. S. I, Karnail Singh, or even assignedly. It seems to me utterly, a ruse that this file should abruptly go in the hands of A. S. I. Karnail Singh in which the. name of the. detenu, should start figuring. And these facts should be highlighted now in Court and not before the Warrant Officer. Though the claim of the Police Officer before the Warrant Officer was that the detenu was not required in any case and he was set at liberty by the S. H.O now A. S. I. Karnail Singh claims that he, as a suspect, is wanted to be interrogated and associated in the investigation. To all these steps, the S. H. O is seemingly, on the face of it not a party,

5. The detenu laments that he has injuries on his person. Since he was set at liberty yesterday by the S. H. O., Police Station. Sidhwan Bet, I would leave the detenu to get himself medicallv examined at his own end. The detenu may, if so advised, take such steps with regard to his illegal detention against the culprits responsible for it in accordance with law.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I on my own, grant the detenu bail in F. I. R. No. 51 dated 13-2-1982 in the sum of Rs. 2000/-with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) as the detenu apprehends his arrest as a suspect and A. S. I. Karnail Singh cannot rule out the possibility,

7. The detenu having been found at the police station and the explanation of A. S. I. Karnail Singh on the face of it being false, entitles the detenu to compensation for illegal detention which is fixed at Rs. 3000/- to be paid by A. S. I. Karnail Singh, This petition is allowed in these terms.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //