Skip to content


Hans Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 61 of 1978
Judge
Reported in1978(11)WLN276
AppellantHans Ram
RespondentThe State of Rajasthan
DispositionApplication rejected
Cases ReferredIn Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed A.I.R.
Excerpt:
.....courts not show undue complacence, obstruct and hamper the search for truth by interfering to investigation at every stage. antisocial adventurer cannot claim for his nefarious activities larger regard than for the defense of the society itself.; i find no ground to issue directions under section 438, cr.p.c.;bail application rejected - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described..........learned counsel for the parties. petitioner hans ram. chairman of the central jo-operative batik, sawai madhopur got collected some money for being presented to the chief minister towards 'chief minister's relief fund'. a complaint was lodged against unauthorized collection and shri brijendra singh presented it to the collector, sawai madhopur for inquiry, who transmitted it to the additional collector, sawai madhopur learned additional collector, sawai madhopur, reached the contusion that the mode of collecting money was unauthorized. there were also certain erasures in the account-books of the multi purpose co operative secret, wajinpura. on the basis of that report the then collector, sawai madhopur, lodged a first information report with the police station, gangapur city. the police.....
Judgment:

M.L. Shrimal, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Petitioner Hans Ram. Chairman of the Central Jo-operative Batik, Sawai Madhopur got collected some money for being presented to the Chief Minister towards 'Chief Minister's Relief Fund'. A complaint was lodged against unauthorized collection and Shri Brijendra Singh presented it to the Collector, Sawai Madhopur for inquiry, who transmitted it to the Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur Learned Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur, reached the contusion that the mode of collecting money was unauthorized. There were also certain erasures in the account-books of the Multi purpose Co operative Secret, Wajinpura. On the basis of that report the then Collector, Sawai Madhopur, lodged a first information report with the Police Station, Gangapur City. The police registered a case (No. 210 on December 3, 1976 against the petitioner under Section 420 and 468, Indian Penal Code.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that he in fact wanted to collect an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for being presented to the then Chief Minister Hon'ble Shri Barkatullah Khan. However, an amount of 2,200/- only could be collected and as such he paid Rs. 5,001/- out of his own pocket and got the amount of Rs. 2,200/- deposited in Wajirpura Co-operative Society. The case of the 'state is that in fact no amount had been deposited with the Society and only paper entries had been made It ha been urged by learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State, that though an amount of Rs. 2,200/- was shown as deposited in the accounts in between April 22, 1973 to April 26, 1973, as amount of Rs. 2,000/-was shown as debited on April 25, 1975 towards the account of Ramoliram and Rs. 260/- were shown debited towards the account of Ramoliram. No account has however, been submitted in respect of these sums. It has also been argued that the Auditors found certain interpolations in the record.

3. No doubt, the petitioner is a member of the Legislative Assembly. No the question arises whether the rest information report was lodged with the intention to implicate a political rival in a false case for the purpose of disgracing him or with the mention to digit acing his public image. Earned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently urged that the first information repair was lodged at the time when the Congress Government was in power and the petitioner is alleged to be a member of that party and as such the question of foisting a false case for political vendetta does not arise.

4. As against contention of the earned Counsel for the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 2,200/- obtained against the receipt, was not retained by the petitioner, the earned Counsel for the State has urged that the then Chief Minister, after accepting the donation of Rs. 5001 /- announced a matching grant and thus an amount of Rs. 10.000 / was re-donated for being spent over famine relit in Sawai Madhopur that, amount, the State counsel adds, has not yet been shown ether in the Collect rate's record or at any other place and it is for the accused to explain as to what has happened to that amount. It has further been urged that the petitioner is being required by the police for the last wore than seven months, but he had been avoiding appearance before the police.

5. A full Bench of the Punjab High Court, while dealing with the provisions of grant of anticipatory bail, under Section 438, Cr.P.C., in Gurbakyh Singh Sibia v. Sare of Punjab A.I.R. 1978 & H 1 has observed in para 62 of the judgment as under :-

In order to successfully invoke the jurisdiction under Section 438, the petitioner apart from satisfying all the conditions requisite under Section 437 must in addition make out a special case for securing an order of anticipatory bail which is of an exceptional type.

In the same case it has further been observed : -

Mere allegation of malafides by an offender and a vehement claim of innocence put forward by him are manifestly insufficient for arriving at such a conclusion by the Court. To put the prosecution to poof at the very inception of the investigation will be running counter to the whole scheme of investigation into cognizable cases as laid down is Chapter XII of the Code. This, indeed is not the stage for invoking the known maxim of the Criminal Law that the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution. That stage arrives at the end of the investigation and in the course of the trial itself. The inception of the investigation is not trial.

6. Section 438, Cr.P.C. does not contain unguided or unanalyzed power to pass an order for anticipatory bail. Such an order being of an exceptional type, can only be passed, apart from the conditions mentioned in Section 437, Cr.P.C., there is a. special case made out for passing the order.

7. In Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed A.I.R. 1945 P.c. 18, their Lordships of the Privy Council observed at page 22 :

Thus the more serious aspect of the case is to be found in the resultant interference by the Court with the duties of the police. Just as it is essential that every one accused of a crime should have free access to a Court of justice so that he may be duly acquitted if found not guilty of the offence with which he is charged, so it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of inquiry.

8. Exposing and possibility of finding sufficient evidence to get punished those who had and have the destiny of the nation at their command may appear as a political vendetta at the first sight, but on a second thought its usefulness cannot be ignored. It impresses the public at large that the violation of laws and swindling of public property is not a paying project. Crimes have their silent tongue, which roar and echoes in the atmosphere and ultimately law takes its own course. It will not be a small gain to the pooled, it law succeeds in installing basic honesty in our politicians at least out of fear, if net from any innate decency.

9. Let courts not show undue complacence, obstruct and hamper the search for truth by interfering in investigation at every stage. Antisocial adventurer cannot claim for his nefarious activities larger regard than for the defense of the society itself, It is equally expected of the investigating officer, who is a police officer of a free democratic country, not to harass the accused involved in a crime but at the same time to investigate the case with due observance of law without fear or favour.

10. For these reasons, I find no ground to issue directions under Section 438, Cr.P.C. The application under Section 438, Cr.P.C., is accordingly rejected.


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