Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) -Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 13.3.2003 and record.
(2.) THE petitioner was recruited as a constable in civil police in the year 1983. When he was posted in District Pilibhit, Criminal proceedings were initiated against him in 1988 under Section 342/409/218/201 of the I.P.C. at police station Bilsanda, district Pilibhit, and were registered as Case Crime No. 233 of 1988. The VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, vide judgment dated 22.5.2001 in Session's Trial No. 208 of 1997 convicted the petitioner for a period of one year for an offence under Section 342, I.P.C., for a period of three years for an offence under Section 218 along with a fine of Rs. 1,000 and for a period of six months for an offence under Section 201 with further stipulation of all convictions running simultaneously. A perusal of the judgment shows that Sita Ram, younger brother of the complainant Babu Ram used to run a small cycle repair shop. On 11.7.1988, Inspector Bahadur Singh Pangati along with petitioner came on his shop and took him away with them on the motorcycle. When he did not return home, the family members of Sita Ram contacted the police station. They were not given any satisfactory reply by the accused. An F.I.R. was lodged with great difficulty on 12.7.1978 by the family members at about 4.50 p.m. against Inspector Bahadur Singh Pangati and the petitioner along with co accused had taken away Sita Ram with them but there is no trace of him. It was registered as Crime No. 233 of 1988 under Section 364, I.P.C.
(3.) THE case of the complainant was that since local police was involved they were not investigating the matter properly and as such, the Director of Police, U. P., Lucknow on their request passed the orders for getting the matter investigated by the Crime Investigation Department, Bareilly. In short the case against the applicant(s) was that the documents were fabricated and prepared to conceal the offence and the accused have misused their position as public servants by making wrong and incorrect entries in the record of the police station. The Sessions Court gave the findings, as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...;