Madhya Pradesh High Court Apologizes To Police Officer For Causing Him Inconvenience On Account Of Misreporting By Govt. Lawyer

Justice Vivek Agarwal was dealing with a bail application, wherein the Court, vide order dated 18.01.2022, had called for the DNA report. However, on the next date of hearing, the report was not produced. The Court noted the submission of the Panel Lawyer that the sample for DNA testing was sent on 12.05.2021. Thus, the Court, vide order dated 02.02.2022, observed-

In similar circumstances once sample is sent it usually takes 45 days for testing and when intimation is received from concerned Lab then report is collected and produced before the court. In this case almost 8 months time has elapsed and DNA report is not available.

As DNA report is not produced, let Superintendent of Police, Bhopal file an affidavit as to why S.H.O police Station Khajuri Sadak, Bhopal has not supplied DNA report for which sample was sent on 12/05/2021 and will also inform as to what action is proposed against the delinquent official responsible for wasting the time of this Court and not producing the DNA report in time.

Despite the directions of the Court, neither any affidavit of S.P., Bhopal was filed nor DNA report was made available on the next date of hearing. Consequently, the Court vide order dated 08.02.2022, issued a bailable warrant against the S.H.O. concerned, directing his attendance, along with the DNA report.

Appearing before the Court on the next date of hearing, the S.H.O. concerned submitted that the Panel Lawyer had wrongly informed the Court that DNA sample was collected on 12.05.2021. He further submitted that one of the accused was absconding and that the sample was collected on 11.02.2022 and 15.02.2022, respectively. Learning the said facts, the Court reprimanded the Panel Lawyer for miscommunication on his part, which had led to the S.H.O. bearing the brunt-

On account of misreporting by the learned Panel Lawyer, this Court was constrained to direct the SHO to remain present and further direct the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal to file an affidavit. This kind of incorrect reporting in the hands of the Panel Lawyer is a serious issue that causes dent to the reputation and credibility of the Court in-as-much as Court trusting the statements given by the learned Panel Lawyer representing the State, orders for action to be taken in the matter but it is apparent from the submissions made by Shri Inder Singh Mujhalda that the statement given by the learned Panel Lawyer was factually incorrect on the face of it.

In view of the submissions of the S.H.O., his personal presence was dispensed with, as was the requirement from the S.P., Bhopal to file an affidavit. The Court also granted him 45 days to submit the DNA report.

Finally, the Court felt it necessary to acknowledge the trouble the Officer had to go through, owing to miscommunication on the part of the Panel lawyer-

This Court would like to place its apology on record for the inconvenience caused to the Government official on account of misreporting by the Panel Lawyer.