RANJIT SINGH,J. - (1.) RULE of law is supreme. Law has to prevail at any cost. The prime responsibility to see that rule of law prevails may be that of the State and the State machinery but the violation thereof, if ever noticed, when some bigwigs are involved where the State may be seen faulting in performance of its duties, the Courts have to step in to ensure that the law prevails. An over -riding duty of the Courts has always been to ensure administration of justice. This is to maintain public confidence of people at large in the rule of law and justice and to uphold the majesty of law. When some complaint is made of any indifferent action or lethargy against the might of administration and where the State machinery fails to protect citizens lives, liberty and property or where investigation is conducted to help the highly placed accused persons, it would be but natural for the Courts to step in to prevent this undue miscarriage of justice. Doing justice is the paramount duty of the Courts and the same can not be abrogated, diluted or diverted by permitting manipulative investigation to leave the accused of the hook by some crook methods.' The Courts have then to ensure that the authority of the State is not misused in this manner to shield men of might. The Courts have to do so to maintain the trust of the society in the rule of law and majesty of law, otherwise justice delivery system would suffer a serious scar, rendering the Courts almost negatory.
(2.) THE above observations are not mere rehotics but a genuine feel and concern of the law and the law Courts for which these exist. This may not normally arise in routine rut of the mill cases but presently are very often before the Court when some influential people use their power and might to taint and interfere with the course of investigation, to which the investigating machinery often buckles down. The case in hand is such, where a public servant beaten black and blue while performing his duties in the office, has come crying before the Court to complain that illegal efforts are being made to save the main accused named by him for this murderous assault and that too for performing his duties diligently and not succumbing to the pressure to waiver and extend undue favours to those in power. Major Gurjinder Singh Benipal, an ex -serviceman, as his name would obviously indicate, and now serving as Tehsildar at Ludhiana, the place famous for land sharks on prowl, has lodged an FIR on 19.6.2009, alleging that while present in his office and performing his duties as Sub Registrar in the Revenue Department, was attacked at 10.45 A.M. by Kamaljit Singh Karwal and Simarjit Singh alongwith their henchmen, who came to his place of work armed with dangs, iron rods, kirpans, knives and hockey sticks. These two persons leading the crowd of attackers, namely, Kamaljit Singh Karwal and Simarjit Singh were the elected Councillors of the City Corporation, controlling Ludhiana. Allegation is that Kamaljit Singh Karwal raised a lalkara and at his instigation, all the persons started giving blows to petitioner with their respective weapons. Surinder Singh son of Malkiat Singh allegedly attacked at the neck/throat of the petitioner. He was dragged out of his place, where Kamaljit Singh Karwal fired from his pistol. Harbans Singh @ Raju allegedly gave rod blow on the right leg of the petitioner. He fell down on the ground and lied motionless. Assailants thought that perhaps he has died due to bullet injury and they apparently retreated from the place, taking him as dead. While leaving the place, they took away licenced .32 bore revolver of the petitioner with six live cartridges loaded therein, his purse, his gold chain weighing 4 tolas and Longiness Swiss watch. FIR No.113 was lodged on 19.6.2009. This occurrence was witnessed by one Mr.Chetan Khanna, who was serving as Registration Clerk and Mr.Paramjit Singh. The offences added in the FIR are under Sections 186, 353, 332, 333, 307, 394, 148, 149, 120 -B IPC and 25/27/55/59 of the Arms Act.
(3.) THE petitioner has also narrated the background and cause of this incident. He has made a mention to the previous threats which were advanced to him by Kamaljit Singh Karwal and Simarjit Singh, both Councillors. The petitioner on his part had been bringing all these incidents of previous threats advanced to him to the notice of higher authorities, namely, the Deputy Commissioner and others. He had earlier also prayed for taking action against them. The petitioner had assumed charge of his office at Ludhiana on 20.11.2008. He states that while taking charge, he had performed Ardas at Gurudwara, where Kamaljit Singh Karwal came accompanied by 20 to 30 persons and complained of he having not been invited to the Ardas. The petitioner was told that he will not be allowed to function in this manner. Promptly, the petitioner wrote to Deputy Commissioner, copy of which is on record of this petition.;