LexGURDEV SINGH BHALLA versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 1 S.C.R. 319 : 2024 INSC 22 Gurdev Singh Bhalla v. State of Punjab & Ors (Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2024) 05 January 2024 [Vikram Nath* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision filed by the appellant against the order of the Special Judge allowing the application u/s. 319 CrPC summoning the appellant along with three other officials of the Police Department. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence – Case of misappropriation of paddy against father of the informant – Application u/s. 319 for summoning the appellant-Inspector investigating the crime and three other police officials – Allegation against them that they demanded money – Application allowed by the trial court – Said order upheld by the High Court – Interference with: Held: Statement of the informant providing complete facts with respect to the conduct of the police officials immediately after surrender of his father – Statement consistent throughout the investigation and trial, and with the other witnesses-complainant’s wife and his father giving the same details – Witnesses equivocally narrated the incidents that took place at different places regarding threats, demand of huge sum of money, torture of the father – In view thereof, there appears to be prima facie evidence on record to make it a triable case as against the appellant – Thus, the order passed by the High Court not interfered with. [Paras 8, 14] Case Law Cited Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab 2014(1) RCR 623 – followed. 320 [2024] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. List of Keywords Summoning of the officials; Misappropriation; Investigation; Trial; Evidence; Witness; Sanction; Torture in custody; Conduct of police officials; Recording of statements; Police remand; Prima facie evidence. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2024. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.03.2023 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No.1751 of 2018. Appearances for Parties Gaurav Agarwal, Aman Singhania, Advs. for the Appellant. Sunil Fernandes, AAG, Ms. Nupur Kumar, Ms. Priyansha Sharma, Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Ms. Diksha Dadu, Ms. Esshaa Miglani @ Pooja Dhingra, Advs. for the Respondents. Applicant-in-person Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Vikram Nath, J. Leave granted. 2. The challenge by means of this appeal is to an order dated 23rd March, 2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby the Criminal Revision filed by the appellant against the order of the Special Judge, Bathinda dated 05.03.2018 allowing the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731summoning the appellant along with three other officials of the Police Department has been dismissed. 1 Cr.P.C. [2024] 1 S.C.R. 321 Gurdev Singh Bhalla v. State of Punjab & Ors 3. Relevant facts are as follows: 3.1 Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd., Bathinda, lodged a complaint on 18.12.2012 at Police Station, Phul, District Bathinda against one Devraj Miglani2 which was registered as FIR No.91/2012 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19884 with the allegations that Devraj had misappropriated paddy worth Rs.4.18 crores. The investigation of the said FIR was transferred to the Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda on 2nd May, 2013 where the appellant was posted as an Inspector and he was assigned the task of investigating the said crime. The accused Devraj was arrested on 31.08.2013. He was granted police remand on 04.09.2013 for 2-3 days until 06.09.2013 and thereafter he was confined to judicial custody. 3.2 Puneet Kumar Miglani5, the informant of the present case, happens to be the son of the accused Devraj. According to the informant of the present case on 06.09.2013 Head Constable Kikkar Singh approached Ms. Ritu, niece of the accused Devraj at her work place i.e. Bathinda branch of the SBI demanding a sum of Rs.50,000/- by handing over a slip which was said to have been written by the accused Devraj apparently mentioning that the holder of the slip may be provided the said amount. It is a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.