9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (9) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of whom the petition is filed be taken into custody. The police party accompanying the third respondent, accordingly, took the said 7 persons into custody and placed them in a police van (No. PB-063100). The petitioner and his family were told that they would be given the dead bodies of the said 7 persons if the third respondent's brother was not produced. The petition sets out the various police stations in which the said 7 persons were from time to time lodged until 28-12-1991. The petition states that efforts to obtain the release of the said 7 persons having failed, the habeas corpus petition had been filed on 27-7-1994. 3.The third respondent, who appeared before us through counsel on 30-8-1994 and today, has filed an affidavit in reply to the petition on 23-8-1994. Therein he denies the allegations made against him in the petition. He states therein that an FIR has been lodged in regard to the abduction of the said 7 persons on 23-3-1994, in P.S. Kathunangal, District Majitha, which is under investigation by Gurcharan Singh, Superintendent of Police, In-Charge, Crime Investigation Cell, Punjab. He states that on 21-10- 1991 he was posted as DSP, Dera Baba Nan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ik Singh, Constable, Gurmukh Singh, Constable and Randhir Singh as Driver. The third respondent had been arrested on 2-9-1994 and the other accused between 27-8-1994 and 4-9-1994. Sufficient evidence had been collected against the accused. All the accused were in judicial custody. The specific allegations in the petition that the said 7 persons had been lodged in the various police stations mentioned until 28-12-1991 is not denied. 8. The affidavit of K.P.S. Gill, Director General of Police, Punjab, the 2nd respondent to the petition, needs to be set out in some detail, He states that he was not the Director General of Police, Punjab, on 29-10-1991, when the incident of abduction of the said 7 persons took place. Upon enquiry, Mr Tulsi stated that the 2nd respondent had taken charge as Director General of Police, Punjab, in November 1991. The 2nd respondent was, therefore, the Director General of Police, Punjab, on 25-1-1992, when, according to his own affidavit, the complaint in regard to the abduction of the said 7 persons, which was addressed to him, was received in his office on 25-1-1992. 9.On the same day, according to the 2nd respondent's affidavit, the complaint was m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retaliatory action and taken the law in his own hands". Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the 2nd respondent's affidavit read thus: "7. That the police has made all possible inquiries about the whereabouts of the abducted persons. All possible clues with regard to whereabouts have been scrutinized by the Investigating Officer under the guidance of senior officer supervising the investigation in spite of the best efforts made to trace their whereabouts, the police has not been able to locate them out and there is no definite clue as to whether they are alive or not. Efforts to trace them will continue to be made and result of further investigation will be placed before the court. 8.That the Punjab Police is proud of the dedication, courage and sense of sacrifice of its officers and men and incidents of the kind mentioned in the petition are deviant behaviour and an aberration on the part of individual member of the force. It is, thus, being dealt with severely and the Majesty of Law will prevail eventually by bringing the guilty to the court of law for receiving suitable punishment. 9.In view of the fact that the charge- sheet has already been filed in the court of competen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndhar, to inquire and send his report. The direction was given on 27-8-1992. No report was forthcoming till 17-2- 1994, i.e., for about 18 months, and,when the report was received it was not from a "senior officer", the DIG, Jallandhar Range, who had been directed to inquire into the matter, but from the SSP, Majitha. No explanation whatever is given as to why the report took 18 months and why, when it came, it was made by the SSP, Majitha, and not the DIG, Jallandhar Range. It will be remembered that the SSP, Majitha, had on 23-4-1992 already come to the conclusion that the complaint against the 3rd respondent was not true. We asked Mr Tulsi whether the person occupying the position of SSP, Majitha, on 17-2-1994, was the same person who had occupied the position on 23-4-1992, he was unable to tell us. 13. Even after the case was registered against the 3rd respondent on 23-3-1994, the 2nd respondent's affidavit states, the 2nd respondent was not informed. The "file was not put up to him at any stage and the matter was dealt with at the level of Director General of Police (Intelligence) and the IG (Crime)". Mr Tulsi submitted that the DG (Intelligence) occup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unjab and by the 2nd respondent which states that any investigation has been made into the conduct of those in-charge of these named police stations and other police officers and policemen therein. They were obviously also involved in illegally detaining the said 7 persons within the precincts of the police stations. We are, therefore, unimpressed by the assertion of the 2nd respondent in his affidavit that "incidents of the kind mentioned in the petition are deviant behaviour and an aberration on the part of individual member of the force". 17. For the reasons that we have already set out, we are unwilling to entrust the investigation of the abduction and presumable liquidation of the said 7 persons to the Punjab Police. We are satisfied that an independent investigation at a very high level is called for. The investigation shall cover (a) the circumstances of the abduction of said 7 persons; (b) their present whereabouts or the date and circumstances of their liquidation; (c) how it was that the inquiry into the complaint was delayed from 25-1-1992, when it was received by the office of the 2nd respondent, till 23-3-1994, when the case was registered; (d) whether it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
