'UAPA, PMLA Can't Be Invoked By Writing Of A Letter From SSP': High Court Directs Punjab Govt To Consider Reinstatement Of Cops Acquitted In UAPA Case

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the Punjab government to reconsider the case of policemen (following their acquittal in a criminal case) who were earlier dismissed from service following a departmental inquiry initiated against them for allegations of supplying arms to Naxalites.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal noted that the SSP concerned had invoked the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 "without ascertaining even the complete title of these Acts as well as the scope of invoking these Acts."

"These are special Acts and cannot be invoked by writing a letter by SSP. This shows that on the one hand, there were serious allegations against the erring police officials and on the other hand, a casual approach was adopted which resulted in the acquittal of the officials. Apart from invoking UAPA and PLMA, provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 were invoked", added the Court.

The Court made this observation while dealing with the writ petitions filed by the policemen challenging the order of dismissal from their services. 

The case in brief was that in the year 2011, a few policemen from Punjab were booked under sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. During the investigation, Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, were also added.

It was alleged that the petitioners in connivance with others had sold arms and ammunition to Naxalites.

The Punjab Police initiated departmental proceedings, as well as criminal proceedings, against the petitioner and others, resulting in their dismissal from service. The petitioner unsuccessfully appealed and submitted a mercy petition to higher authorities. The mercy petition was dismissed in 2021; even though, the petitioners were acquitted by the trial court in 2019.

During the present proceeding, the Court noted that the SSP invoked the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 without ascertaining even the complete title of these Acts as well as the scope of invoking these Acts.

It further noted that the charges under Section 16A of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and PMLA, 2002 were dropped by Sessions Judge snd the trial Court in 2019 acquitted the accused policemen in the case.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that number of police officials were charged with the same set of allegations and they were jointly tried by the same Court.

However, the petitioners have not been reinstated; in contrast, co-accused policemen, after their acquittal, have been reinstated. Two co-accused individuals passed away during the trial's pendency, and their family members have been extended the benefit of family pension, added the counsel.

Considering the submissions, the Court noted that the petitioners, based on the same set of allegations, underwent both departmental and criminal proceedings. All the police officials received the same punishment in the departmental proceedings, and despite their acquittal in the criminal proceedings, only a few of them have been reinstated.

In the wake of facts mentioned above and statements of counsel for the parties, the respondents were directed to re-consider the case of the petitioners in the light of Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as well as orders of reinstatement passed in the case of other police officials who were accused along with the petitioner in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings.

The Court disposed of the petition stating that "the needful shall be done within three months from today."

Appearance: Balbir K.Saini, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-18056-2021.

Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-1948-2022.

Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 280

Title: Harmeet Lal v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Click here to download/read the order