SUMANJIT SINGH Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUMANJIT Singh purchased Shed No. B-20 situated in Industrial Area, Malerkotla from the Industries Department. Adjoining owner of shed No. B-10 named Satish Kumar allegedly trespassed into it on March 16, 1981 and removed the iron sheets placed on the roof of Shed No. B-20. Finding a prima -facie case on the basis of contents of DDR No. 17 dated March 16, 1981 recorded in Police Station, Malerkotla, report of enquiry submitted by DSP and the contents of the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. learned trial Court framed the charge against the accused Satish Kumar on May 4, 1984 under Sections 488 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IN the Criminal Revision, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide his impugned order dated September 12, 1985 found that the statement of Narain Dewan recorded by S.I Joginder Singh in the course of investigation on October, 18, 1982 had escaped perusal of the learned trial Court wherein the witness was recorded to have told the police that accused Satish Kumar entered into possession of Shed No. B-10 in 1974 and that wife of Satish Kumar and owner of the Shed named Sumanjit Singh were doing joint business therein and that as stated by Mohan Lal an attesting witness of the Panchnama prepared on February 6, 1981 raiding party of the Income Tax Department had found the material of Satish Kumar lying in Shed No. B-20 of Sumanjit Singh on that day. In this view of the matter Satish Kumar was in possession of Shed No. B-20 with effect from 1974 and the assertion in the Daily Diary Report No. 17 that he had entered into forcible possession of it on March 16, 1981 was a faked one and stood belied from the depositions of Narain Dewan and Mohan Lal aforesaid recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Allegation of mischief by removal of the tin sheets from the roof of Shed No. 20-B on March 16, 1981 was also rendered groundless thereby.

(3.) THE reasoning given by learned Additional Sessions Judge while upsetting the finding of the learned trial Court is that statement of Narinder Dewan recorded by SI Joginder Singh on October 18, 1982 as also the statement of Mohan Lal were both not adverted to or considered by the learned trial Court while deciding the existence of prima facie ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence under Sections 448 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, that both these statements clearly negatived the existence of any prima facie ground for presuming the commission of these offences by the accused qua Shed B 20 and that these statements had initially been with held by the Police. Observations made by the learned Appellate Court in this regard read, "Before paring with this judgment it will not be out of place to mention here that during the course of arguments, the prosecution moved an application for summoning the application given by the petitioner against the local police. It is alleged that the petitioner has attached the photostat copy of the statement of Narain Dewan (PW) recorded by S.I. Joginder Singh on 18.10.1982. In pursuance of this application filed by the prosecution the enquiry file was produced in the court from the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur which was seen by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sh. K.C. Verma and had stated that the said file does not contain the photostat copy of the statement of Narain Dewan recorded by S.I. Joginder Singh and that the has also confirmed from Sh. Prem Juman, Clerk, of the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur that a photostat copy of the alleged statement is not in existence or on the file. I have myself gone through the enquiry report conducted on the complaint of Satish Kumar petitioner. The enquiry file does not contain the photostat copy of the statement of Narain Dewan (PW) recorded by S.I. Joginder Singh. The perusal of this file goes to show that there is one statement of Narain Dewan recorded on 18.10.1982 by SI Joginder Singh. This copy of the statement which exists on plot No. B-20 had been given to the petitioner Satish Kumar and that Sumanjit Singh and the wife of Satish Kumar had started a spare-parts shop. This statement further reveals that in the year 1980 Sumanjit Singh wanted to get the shed vacated from the petitioner, the possession of which was delivered by him to Satish Kumar petitioner in the year 1947. In this statement, it has been further mentioned that Satish Kumar had not broken open the locks of the shed on 16.3.1981 as has been alleged by the complainant Sumanjit Singh. In view of these circumstances, I am constrained to observe that the investigation of this case has not been done by the police investigating agency fairly and impartially and the police investigating agency had been playing hide and seek game at the instance of the parties concernment. Under these circumstances, if at all the petitioner is in possession of plot No. B-20, without any right or title Sumanjit Singh complainant could seek civil remedy to get back the possession of plot in question."