HARERAM SAMANTA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HOOGHLY
LAWS(CAL)-1961-8-4
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 24,1961

HARERAM SAMANTA Appellant
VERSUS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HOOGHLY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE petitioner was appointed a constable, in the Bengal Police Service in the year 1934. He passed certain departmental examinations, worked his way up and ultimately, on July 20, 1956, took over charge of the Malkhana and cash as the Senior Court Sub-Inspector of Serampore Court.
(2.) WHILE serving as such, he was suspended on certain allegations of misconduct. There was a preliminary enquiry into the allegations and a report of enquiry was submitted. On the basis of the report, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet to the following effect:- "1. On 11-1-56 two receipts of route permit and tax token receipt were forwarded to Serampore Court in connexion with Serampore P. S. Non F. I. R. Case No. 19/56 u/s. 468 I. P. C. against accused Sher Taj Singh, Shib Lakshman and Shardar Sher Singh and these documents were entered in Serampore Court malkhana register under item No. 50/56. Although the said case is pending trial in court and the next date of hearing has been fixed for 22-12-56, you being the conducting C. S. I, of the case, made a wrong entry in the Malkhana register against item No. 50/56 to the effect that the accused persons were convicted in the case by the S. D. O. Serampore and thus you tampered the official records. 2. On 21-7-56 you obtained orders from S. D. O. Serampore for destruction of the alamats as mentioned in charge No. 1 (M. R. Item No. 50/56) and you had actually destroyed the said alamats which were to be exhibited in the said case. "
(3.) ON 9-10-56, you being in charge of Serampore Court Malkhana produced one cycle an alamat of Serampore P. S. Non G. R. No. 235/56 u s. 4 B. C. L. A. Act, (Item No. 2 of Serampore Court Malkhana register No. 677/56) before Court Inspr. Shri R. N. Sen for auction sale although there were 2 cycles for auction sale as ordered by the trying magistrate in connection with the said case and you set apart the other cycle (item No. 1 of Serampore Court malkhana register No. 677/56) which you did not produce before the Court Inspector, at the time of auction. This cycle (Item No. I of M. R. No. 677/56) was removed by you from the malkhana sometimes between 9-10-56 and 24-10-56 and taken at your instance to your residence at Chinsurah with the help of C/977 Jogendra Chaudhury and C/lalon Misir both of Serampore Court. 4. On 24-10-56 you deposited Rs. 65/- to the Serampore treasury as per Serampore T. V. No. 84 dated 24-10-56 (R. V. No. 11 (10)56) as the sale proceeds of both the cycles (as stated in charge no. 4) after tampering the relevalent receipt cheque cash account bid list and the malkhana register in order to make it appear that both the cycles were sold in auction, one Rs. 50/- and the other for Rs. 15/ -. 5. On 30-8-56 a piece of gold sheet weighing about 3 as and 21/2 pies was received by you as personal property of one Panchanan Chatterjee, accused of Jagipara P. S. Case No. 10 dated 27-6-56 (vide Serampore Court M. R. No. 1368/56) and on the same date ou obtained orders from the trying Magistrate for sending the said piece of gold to the accused who was released on bail and you showed the said item as disposed of in the malkhana register after obtaining L. T. I. of an unknown person but actually you delivered the said personal property to Panchanan Chatterjee on 30-10-56, when he claimed it 6. On 31-7-56 you had shown a silk saree (Ref. Serampore Court M. R. No. 240/56) as disposed of in the malkhana register on a forged L. T. I. whereas you actually made it over to the rightful owner Shri Debu Mondal of Roy Ghat Lane, P. S. Serampore on 13-9-56 after taking a receipt from him. " 3. The petitioner denied the charges levelled against him. As a result of a departmental enquiry into the charges however, the petitioner was found guilty of all the charges. Mr. A. C. Sen, a Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted the enquiry, however observed as follows:- "the previous character of the delinquent was however good. He has so far earned 112 rewards against 13 minor punishments. In view of all this, I would suggest that a somewhat lenient view may be taken of the offence done by the delinquent, and would recommend that the delinquent be reverted to the rank of A. S. I, for a period of three years to be spent on duty. He should be released from suspension immediately. The period spent in suspension should be treated as spent on duty. ";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.