9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged special procedure in the institution and investigation of criminal cases. 2. Alleged unequal treatment in administering the law. 3. Allegations against the Chief Minister regarding interference in the investigation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Alleged Special Procedure in the Institution and Investigation of Criminal Cases: The petitioners alleged that a special procedure, unknown to law, was adopted in the institution and investigation of criminal cases against them. They cited several items constituting this special procedure, including the entertainment of a criminal complaint personally by the Chief Minister, institution of complaints by the C.I.D. police, and investigation by specially chosen C.I.D. officials. Analysis: - The court examined the four criminal cases mentioned in the petition: Sethi's case, Dhingra's case, the Orphanage case, and the Ayurvedic Fund case. - In Sethi's case, the court noted that the complaint was sent to the Chief Minister, who forwarded it to the Additional Inspector General of Police. The investigation was then conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Amritsar. The court held that this procedure was not unknown to law as it was sanctioned under Section 551 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows police officers superior in rank to exercise powers of an officer in charge of a police station throughout the local area. - In Dhingra's case, a similar procedure was followed, with the Chief Minister directing the Additional Inspector General of Police to take action. The court again found that this procedure was legally valid under Section 551 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - For the Orphanage case and the Ayurvedic Fund case, the court found no specific illegality in their institution or investigation and held that the involvement of C.I.D. officers did not make the investigation bad in law. 2. Alleged Unequal Treatment in Administering the Law: The petitioners argued that they were singled out for unequal treatment in the administration of the law, constituting a denial of their right to equal protection under Article 14 of the Constitution. Analysis: - The court considered whether the petitioners were subjected to a special procedure or unequal treatment. It noted that the involvement of C.I.D. officers in the investigation was due to the special nature of the cases and the status of the petitioners. - The court held that the procedure followed in Sethi's and Dhingra's cases was legally valid and did not constitute unequal treatment. The court was not convinced that the procedure was motivated by any evil purpose or unfair discrimination. - For the Orphanage and Ayurvedic Fund cases, the court found no evidence of unfair discrimination or unequal treatment in their investigation. 3. Allegations Against the Chief Minister Regarding Interference in the Investigation: The petitioners alleged that the Chief Minister was personally involved in the institution and investigation of the criminal cases against them, leading to harassment and persecution. Analysis: - The court noted that the Chief Minister did not file an affidavit in response to the allegations against him. However, affidavits were filed by the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, and other officials. - The court found that the petitioners failed to establish that they incurred the displeasure of the Chief Minister due to the Grewal case and the Sangrur case. The court also noted that the Chief Minister's actions in forwarding complaints to the police did not constitute illegal interference. - The court expressed concern over the Chief Minister's failure to file an affidavit, stating that it would have helped clear doubts and demonstrate that justice was being done. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners failed to establish that a special procedure unknown to law was adopted or that they were subjected to unequal treatment. The court also found no legal justification for the petitioners' grievance against the Chief Minister. The petition was dismissed without any order for costs.
|
