Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Pay Rs. 1.5 Lakh Litigation Cost To Disabled Man Booked For Illicit Liquor Trade On 'Mistaken Identity'
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the State of Punjab to pay a litigation cost of Rs.1.5 lakh to a man suffering from 80% locomotion disability, who was booked on "mistaken identity" under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, for allegedly fleeing with illicit liquor in his vehicle.It was found that he was incapable of driving any vehicle due to Post-Polio Residual Paralysis of lower...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the State of Punjab to pay a litigation cost of Rs.1.5 lakh to a man suffering from 80% locomotion disability, who was booked on "mistaken identity" under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, for allegedly fleeing with illicit liquor in his vehicle.
It was found that he was incapable of driving any vehicle due to Post-Polio Residual Paralysis of lower limbs and he was unable to even stand on his own, let alone walk or run and he is wheel chair bound owing to his disability.
Justice Arun Monga said, "it is considered desirable that the petitioner, who has suffered unnecessarily at the hands of erring police officials and was forced into litigation first before learned Sessions Court and then before this Court, be awarded at least the litigation costs. Same are assessed at Rs.50,000/- for litigation before learned Court below and Rs.1,00,000/- for this Court, thus a total Rs.1,50,000/-."
"The same be paid from the State exchequer as of now, to be recovered subsequently from the erring police officials, subject to outcome of the enquiry to be conducted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pathankot," added the Court.
These observations were made while hearing the plea of one Kulwinder Singh, who was named as one of the accused in illicit liquor trade case under Sections 61, 78(2) of Punjab Excise Act and Sections 420, 467, 468 , 471 read with 120B of the IPC.
According to prosecution, Singh fled away from the scene of occurrence when the police officials tried to apprehend him on a surprise check of the vehicle he was driving, wherefrom huge catch of liquor was recovered in violation of Punjab Excise Act, 1914.
As per the FIR, the other accused persons who were apprehended revealed the name of the fleeing person as Kulwinder Singh, the petitioner.
The Court noted that, "SHO Ms. Manjeet Kaur along with ASI Sartaj Singh are present in Court and offer their unconditional apology for the faux pas that has occurred in the case due to mistaken identity of the petitioner."
The counsel for the state submitted that that "false name of the petitioner" was given in the "disclosure statement of co-accused" Charanjit Singh, who was arrested on spot. Same led to the petitioner being named as one of the prime accused in the FIR in question.
Justice Monga remarked, "To say the least, their belated apology, at this stage seems to have been tendered to save themselves from the adverse consequences contemplated at the time of passing the order dated 05.10.2023, when the IO was very much present in this Court and said order was dictated in his presence."
The Court observed that that it is rather "unfathomable" that when anticipatory bail petition was filed in September, before the Sessions Court at Pathankot and the contents thereof were completely known to the police officials as well as to the APP, even then no attempt was made to verify with regard to the identity of the petitioner and/or he being 80% incapacitated and wheel chair bound.
"On the contrary, a completely opposite stand was taken before the learned Sessions Court at the time of arguments." it added.
The bench further observed that when the pre-arrest bail was heard on the very day at 03:20 pm an DDR was recorded by the ASI Sartaj Singh stating that petitioner was inadvertently named as the prime accused and, he is actually innocent.
On asking "why the said DDR was not handed over to Sessions Court, when the matter was being heard in Court on the same very day and, if the same was not possible, why the Court was not verbally informed that petitioner had already been found innocent so as to render the anticipatory bail petition infructuous on that ground alone, instead of being dismissed on merits", the ASI stated, "he had though informed the Court but notice of the same was not taken thereof by learned Sessions Judge sized of the matter."
"Once again, I do not find such an explanation worthy of acceptance," the Court remarked.
In the light of the above the Court directed the SSP, Pathankot to personally look into the matter and assign the investigation to another police official not below the rank of DSP.
It also directed that he shall conduct an administrative enquiry into the entire matter and, in case he finds the aforesaid statements of SHO/ASI made before this Court to be false, "then action be taken against the delinquent officials for deliberately making a false statement including institution of appropriate proceedings."
The Court added that report of the enquiry be submitted before the ASJ who passed the order dismissing the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner.
After considering the report, ASJ shall, "if deemed appropriate, take further steps to register a complaint under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the delinquent police officials who have led to the whole melee," it said.
Appearance: Dinesh Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mohit Thakur, AAG Punjab
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 215
Case Title: Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab