FATEH SINGH BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Fateh Singh Bhandari
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Buddhi Lal, Station Officer, police station Kotwali Uttarkashi, lodged an FIR in police station Kotwali Uttarkashi on 19.11.2001, at 10:30 A.M., in respect of offence punishable under Section 29 of the Police Act against constable Fateh Singh, police lines, Uttarkashi. It was alleged that accused was found in drunken state in Police Guard duty on 20.09.2001, at 03:00 P.M. The delay in lodging the FIR was attributed to a preliminary enquiry in which the accused was found guilty. The permission of Superintendent of Police, Uttarkashi was also sought to prosecute the accused constable. The FIR was bound to be delayed, if preliminary enquiry was conducted, which took sufficient time, and the permission of the District Police Chief was taken to prosecute the erring police official.
(2.) The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Uttarkashi, while inspecting the Police Guard, found constable Fateh Singh in drunken state. Medical examination of Fateh Singh was conducted. Medical report was positive for alcohol contents. When an explanation was sought from the accused, he said that he was consuming drugs because of his failing health. Accused said that he consumed 'Pudin Hara', an ayurvedic medicine. The accused created ruckus in the Guard Room under the influence of alcohol. His legs were trembling. He was abusing and misbehaving with the fellow police personnel. The accused constable thus created indiscipline, which was unbecoming of a police official. As said earlier, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by Station Officer Buddhi Lal and found him guilty. The FIR was lodged against accused constable only after seeking the permission of the Superintendent of Police, Uttarkashi. After the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused constable under Section 29 of the Police Act.
(3.) When the trial began, the accused pleaded not guilty to the allegations levelled against him. PW1 S.I. Buddhi Lal, PW2 Head Constable Vinod Kumar, PW3 Constable Ranjit Ram, PW4 Dy.S.P. Vishram Ram, PW5 Dr. A.K. Rao, PW6 S.I. Ombir Singh and PW7 Head Constable Balbir Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. He did not say anything about the report of the Medical Officer, which affirmed that he consumed alcohol.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.