IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 102 of 2003 Judgment reserved on: 01.12.2009 Decided of decision: 22.2.2010 Tilak Raj ….. Petitioner. Vs. The State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This revision has been directed against the judgment dated 13.6.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Crl. Appeal No.9-P/X/2001 affirming judgment dated 16.5.2001 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur in Crl. Case No.148-II/97, convicting the petitioner under Section 186 IPC and sentencing him to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2. The further relevant facts are that on 28.3.1996 at about 7.30 P.M., PW-4 Gurdas Ram the then ASI, Police Station, Palampur Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… alongwith other police officials were at village Rajpur Tanda in connection with investigation of cases of FIR No.101/96 and FIR No.102/96. The aforesaid police officials were conducting the search of the shop of Rumail Chand. The petitioner had appeared on the spot and claimed that he happened to be Pardhan of Gram Panchayat, Rajpur Tanda and asked the witnesses not to sign the recovery memo. The petitioner held out threats that he was the `malik’ of the area and threatened the investigating party that he would get their stars/ranks removed by approaching the officers and other authorities. He was persuaded, but he did not desist and asked people to lock up the police officials inside the shop. He put down the shutter of the shop and with great difficulty police officials came out of the shop, they attempted to nab the petitioner, but he ran away from the spot. It was alleged that petitioner had voluntarily obstructed Gurdas Ram public servant to discharge his duties. Gurdas Ram filed complaint in the Court under Section 186 IPC. 3. The notice of accusation was put to petitioner for offence punishable under Section 186 IPC; he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined four witnesses and produced some documentary evidence. The statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution case. The petitioner did not lead any evidence in defence. On conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate as noticed above on 16.5.2001. In appeal learned Sessions Judge on 13.6.2003 has affirmed the judgment …3… dated 16.5.2001 of learned trial Court. In these circumstances, accused has come in revision in this court. 4. I have heard Mr. Jagdish Vats, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that PW-4 Gurdas Ram was the complainant, he himself investigated the case, therefore, the investigation in the case is vitiated and no conviction can be passed in the case on the basis of investigation conducted by the complainant himself. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative has submitted to take lenient view in the case in asmuch as the alleged occurrence took place on 28.3.1996 and now more than 13 years are over. The petitioner has already suffered agony of legal proceedings since 1996 on wards. The learned Addl. Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied Megha Singh vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 2339 wherein it has been held that PW-3 Siri Chand Head Constable arrested the accused and on search being conducted by him a pistol and the cartridges were recovered from the accused. It was on his complaint a formal first information report was lodged and the case was initiated. He being complainant should not have proceeded with the investigation of the case. But it appears that he was not only the complainant in the case but he carried on with the investigation and examined witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Such practice, to say the least, should not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. The Supreme Court has not held that …4… in such situation trial of the accused would vitiate as the same is based upon investigation conducted by the complainant. However, the Supreme Court has held that such practice to say the least, should not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. 6. In State vs. V. Jayapaul (2004) 5 SCC 223, the Supreme Court has noticed Megha Singh supra and has held that there is no principle or binding authority to hold that the moment the competent police officer, on the basis of information received, makes out an FIR incorporating his name as the informant, he forfeits his right to investigate. 7. In S.Jeevanatham vs. State, AIR 2004 SC 4608 the Supreme court has held as follows:- “In the instant case, PW-8 conducted the search and recovered the contraband article and registered the case and the article seized from the appellant was narcotic drug and the counsel for the appellant could not point out any circumstances by which the investigation caused prejudiced or was biased against the appellant. PW-8 in his official capacity gave the information, registered the case and as part of his official duty and later investigated the case and filed charge-sheet. He was not in any way personally interested in the case. We are unable to find any sort of bias in the process of investigation”. In view of law laid down by the Supreme Court, noticed above there is no force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that trial has vitiated on the ground that Gurdas Ram complainant himself investigated the case and therefore, conviction and sentence of the petitioner is bad. …5… 8. The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is also not in accordance with the factual position. In the present case, the proceedings were initiated by filing a complaint Ex.PW-4/C in the Court by Gurdas Ram ASI. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner that Gurdas Ram himself lodged the FIR and conducted the investigation and on the basis of that investigation the petitioner was prosecuted has no basis. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even on merits no case is made out against the petitioner. PW-1 Kaku Ram was declared hostile but he has admitted his signature on his statement Ex.PW-1/A. PW-2 Sanjeev Kumar No.804, Traffic Police, Chamunda has stated that in the year 1996 he was posted at Palampur Police Station. On 28.3.1996 at about 7.30 P.M. he and others joined Gurdas Ram in connection with the investigation of cases FIR Nos. 101/96 and 102/96 under the Excise Act at Rajpur Tanda, in the meanwhile accused appeared there and desisted from signing the recovery memo. He threatened the police officials that he would remove their stars. He ordered them that they could not search without his permission as he was Pardhan and ‘malik’ of the village. PW-3 Ajay Kumar No.399, PP Panchrukhi has corroborated the statement of PW-2 Sanjeev Kumar on material particulars. PW-4 Gurdas Ram has supported his complaint in its entirety. In cross- examination he has stated that at that time only Tilak Raj came. Ex.PA is the rapat No.35 dated 28.3.1996 lodged by ASI Gurdas Ram regarding the incident. Ex.PD is the copy of FIR No. 101/96 and …6… Ex.PF is the copy of FIR No.102/96 registered at Police Station, Palampur. 10. The two Courts below have appreciated the evidence on record. It is not the case of the petitioner that the present case is of no evidence. It cannot be said that the view taken by two Courts below does not emerge from the evidence on record nor it can be said that the impugned judgment is perverse. The scope of revision is limited. On the basis of material on record it cannot be said that view taken by two Courts below is not a possible view. In these circumstances the conviction of petitioner under Section 186 IPC recorded by trial Court and upheld by leaned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be illegal. 11. There is, however, substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for taking lenient view as the occurrence took place about more than 13 years ago. Therefore, in the ends of justice lenient view is taken, impugned judgment is modified, conviction of petitioner under Section 186 IPC is upheld, however the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 186 IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The revision is disposed of on above terms. February 22, 2010 (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge.