Court Quashes Complaint Against Police Officials In NDPS Case; Says Section 340 CrPC Procedure And Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Were Not Followed
Chandigarh, June 8: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a complaint initiated against police officials in connection with an NDPS case after the accused was acquitted by the Trial Court.
Justice N.S. Shekhawat held that once the main criminal trial had already been decided and the accused had been acquitted, the Trial Court had become functus officio and could not entertain a subsequent application seeking action against police officials for allegedly giving false evidence, fabricating documents and falsely implicating the accused.
The Court also held that the mandatory procedure under Section 340 CrPC was not followed and that prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required before taking cognizance against public servants for acts connected with official duty.
Background
The appeal was filed by ASI Joga Singh and other police officials against an order dated 09.09.2017 passed by the Judge, Special Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.
By the said order, the Special Court had allowed an application filed by Manmohan Singh under Section 58 of the NDPS Act, Section 195 IPC and Section 357-A CrPC.
The respondent had also sought compensation of ₹3,00,000 for alleged mental and physical harassment.
NDPS Case Against Respondent
The matter arose from FIR No. 159 dated 12.09.2011 registered at Police Station City Jagraon under Sections 15/61/85 of the NDPS Act.
The prosecution case was that Manmohan Singh was apprehended by police and recovery was allegedly effected from him.
However, after trial, the Special Court acquitted him on 11.07.2013 by giving him benefit of doubt. The acquittal was recorded because the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, including failure of link evidence and discrepancies in prosecution evidence.
Application Filed After Acquittal
Nearly six months after his acquittal, Manmohan Singh filed an application on 28.01.2014.
He alleged that he had actually been apprehended on 08.09.2011 in connection with a theft allegation and was kept in illegal police custody till 13.09.2011. According to him, he was falsely implicated in the NDPS case on 12.09.2011.
He sought action against the police officials for allegedly giving false evidence, forging documents and planting case property.
The Special Court later ordered filing of complaint against the police officials under Section 58 of the NDPS Act and Section 195 IPC.
Police Officials Challenged The Order
The appellants argued before the High Court that the Special Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application after the NDPS trial had already concluded.
It was contended that after passing the judgment of acquittal, the Trial Court became functus officio and could not review or reopen the matter in the guise of entertaining a miscellaneous application.
The appellants also argued that the Trial Court had not conducted the mandatory preliminary enquiry under Section 340 CrPC and had not recorded a finding that it was expedient in the interest of justice to initiate prosecution.
It was further submitted that the appellants were public servants and no sanction under Section 197 CrPC had been obtained before initiating proceedings against them.
No Adverse Finding In Acquittal Judgment
The High Court examined the judgment of acquittal dated 11.07.2013.
The Court found that the Trial Court had acquitted Manmohan Singh by giving him benefit of doubt, as the prosecution failed to prove the link evidence and there were discrepancies in witness statements.
However, the Court noted that no adverse comments were made in the acquittal judgment against the conduct of the police officials who had appeared as witnesses.
There was also no finding in the acquittal judgment that the police had falsely implicated the respondent in the NDPS case.
Trial Court Became Functus Officio
The High Court accepted the contention that after disposal of the main criminal case, the Trial Court had no authority to entertain the subsequent application and pass orders for filing a criminal complaint.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, where it was held that criminal courts cannot review their judgments and that miscellaneous petitions filed after disposal of the main case cannot be used as a substitute for fresh litigation.
The High Court held that once the respondent had been acquitted on 11.07.2013, the Trial Court could not later entertain an application and initiate prosecution against the police officials on the same matter.
Section 340 CrPC Procedure Not Followed
The Court further examined Section 340 CrPC, which provides the procedure for cases mentioned in Section 195 CrPC.
Justice Shekhawat observed that before filing a complaint under Section 195(1) CrPC, the Court must form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to conduct an enquiry into the alleged offence.
The Court is also required to record a finding to that effect after such preliminary enquiry as may be necessary.
In the present case, the High Court found that the Trial Court had not properly recorded the required satisfaction that prosecution of the police officials was expedient in the interest of justice.
The Court also found nothing on record to show that the appellants had fabricated false evidence or records.
Acquittal Due To Discrepancies Does Not Mean False Implication
The High Court clarified that merely because an accused is acquitted due to benefit of doubt or discrepancies in prosecution evidence, it does not automatically mean that the police officials had falsely implicated him or fabricated evidence.
The Court noted that the NDPS case had failed because of certain discrepancies and failure of link evidence, not because of any judicial finding that the police officials had deliberately planted the case property or fabricated documents.
Therefore, the complaint could not be sustained on this ground also.
Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Required
The High Court also held that the appellants were public servants and the allegations against them related to acts done while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duties.
The Court referred to the object of Section 197 CrPC, which is to protect public servants from frivolous, vexatious or ill-motivated prosecution for acts connected with official duty.
Relying on the Supreme Court decision in G.C. Manjunath v. Seetaram, the Court observed that sanction is required where the alleged act has a reasonable connection with official duty, even if the public servant is alleged to have exceeded his authority.
Since no sanction under Section 197 CrPC had been obtained, the proceedings against the police officials could not continue.
Complaint Quashed
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 09.09.2017 passed by the Special Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.
The complaint titled State through Dilbagh Singh Johal v. ASI Joga Singh and Others and all consequential proceedings arising from it were quashed qua the appellants.
Key Takeaway
The judgment reiterates three important principles.
First, after deciding the main criminal case, a Trial Court cannot entertain a later miscellaneous application seeking prosecution of witnesses or police officials in relation to that case, unless the procedure is legally maintainable.
Second, prosecution under Section 195 read with Section 340 CrPC requires the Court to record satisfaction that it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate such proceedings. A mere acquittal on benefit of doubt does not automatically justify prosecution of investigating officials.
Third, where allegations against public servants are reasonably connected with discharge of official duties, prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC is mandatory before cognizance can be taken.