Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) THE grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that though he was also one of the members of the raiding party, who arrested hardened criminals, still local rank promotions have been awarded to other members of the raiding party, but the same has been denied to him. He has only been awarded a certificate and cash award of Rs. 2,500/ -, whereas some members of the raiding party were granted double promotions. The petitioner has made representation dated 14.5.2013 for consideration of his case also in the same line, however, the same has not been responded to. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied at this stage in case a direction is issued to the Director General of Police, Punjab for considering the claim of the petitioner, as made in the aforesaid representation. In terms of the reply dated 10.10.2013 in response to an application filed under the Right to Information Act, it has been admitted that Director General of Police is competent to award two promotions together to an employee for his commendable job in lieu of reward under Rule 13.21 of the Punjab Police Rules.
(2.) CONSIDERING the prayer made by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider the representation made by the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is made clear that these types of commendations and promotions should not be awarded hurriedly merely after an alleged accused has been arrested even without waiting for the outcome of the prosecution case, as it is seen that in many cases the prosecution ultimately fails. Meaning thereby, the persons, who may have been arrested initially in some case, considering them to be criminals, are found to be innocent by the court, but still immediately on arrest, the promotions and rewards are granted to the members of the raiding party. Recently Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Krishanbhai etc., : 2014 (1) SCALE 177 has opined that in case of failure in prosecution, the Investigating Officer/agency should also be held responsible. Relevant paras thereof are extracted below: 17. Every time there is an acquittal, the consequences are just the same, as have been noticed hereinabove. The purpose of justice has not been achieved. There is also another side to be taken into consideration. We have declared the accused respondent innocent, by upholding the order of the High Court, giving him the benefit of doubt. He may be truly innocent, or he may have succeeded because of the lapses committed by the investigating/prosecuting teams. If he has escaped, despite being guilty, the investigating and the prosecution agencies must be deemed to have seriously messed it all up. And if the accused was wrongfully prosecuted, his suffering is unfathomable. Here also, the investigating and the prosecuting agencies are blameworthy. It is therefore necessary, not to overlook even the hardship suffered by the accused, first during the trial of the case, and then at the appellate stages. An innocent person does not deserve to suffer the turmoil of a long drawn litigation, spanning over a decade, or more. The expenses incurred by an accused in his defence can dry up all his financial resources -ancestral or personal. Criminal litigation could also ordinarily involve financial borrowings. An accused can be expected to be under a financial debt, by the time his ordeal is over. 18 & 19. xx xx xx 20. Every acquittal should be understood as a failure of the justice delivery system, in serving the cause of justice. Likewise, every acquittal should ordinarily lead to the inference, that an innocent person was wrongfully prosecuted. It is therefore, essential that every State should put in place a procedural mechanism, which would ensure that the cause of justice is served, which would simultaneously ensure the safeguard of interest of those who are innocent. In furtherance of the above purpose, it is considered essential to direct the Home Department of every State, to examine all orders of acquittal and to record reasons for the failure of each prosecution case. A standing committee of senior officers of the police and prosecution departments, should be vested with aforesaid responsibility. The consideration at the hands of the above committee, should be utilized for crystalizing mistakes committed during investigation, and/or prosecution, or both. The Home Department of every State Government will incorporate in its existing training programmes for junior investigation/prosecution officials course -content drawn from the above consideration. The same should also constitute course -content of refresher training programmes, for senior investigating/prosecuting officials. The above responsibility for preparing training programmes for officials, should be vested in the same committee of senior officers referred to above. Judgments like the one in hand (depicting more than 10 glaring lapses in the investigation/prosecution of the case), and similar other judgments, may also be added to the training programmes. The course content will be reviewed by the above committee annually, on the basis of fresh inputs, including emerging scientific tools of investigation, judgment of courts, and on the basis of experiences gained by the standing committee while examining failures, in unsuccessful prosecution of cases. We further direct, that the above training programme be put in place within 6 months. This would ensure that those persons who handle sensitive matters concerning investigation/prosecution are fully trained to handle the same. Thereupon, if any lapses are committed by them, they would not be able to feign innocence, when they are made liable to suffer departmental action, for their lapses. 21. On the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the concerned investigating/prosecuting official(s) responsible for such acquittal must necessarily be identified. A finding needs to be recorded in each case, whether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy. Each erring officer must suffer the consequences of his lapse, by appropriate departmental action, whenever called for. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter, the concerned official may be withdrawn from investigative responsibilities, permanently or temporarily, depending purely on his culpability. We also feel compelled to require the adoption of some indispensable measures, which may reduce the malady suffered by parties on both sides of criminal litigation. Accordingly we direct, the Home Department of every State Government, to formulate a procedure for taking action against all erring investigating/prosecuting officials/officers. All such erring officials/officers identified, as responsible for failure of a prosecution case, on account of sheer negligence or because of culpable lapses, must suffer departmental action. The above mechanism formulated would infuse seriousness in the performance of investigating and prosecuting duties, and would ensure that investigation and prosecution are purposeful and decisive. The instant direction shall also be given effect to within six months. If ultimately the prosecution fails, the persons assigned investigation and prosecution may be liable for action. Under these circumstances granting benefits immediately after arrest may be contrary to the law laid down in the above judgment. The writ petition stands disposed of.;