M. Sikri, Advocate General for the State of Punjab, H. Doabia, Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab, M. S. Punnu, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Punjab and D. Gupta, for the Respondents.
S. R. Chari, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the Petitioners.
In the petition four criminal cases were referred to as illustrative of the special procedure, said to be unwarranted by law, adopted against the petitioners, and in a supplementary petition filed on June 9, 1960, some more cases were referred to.
October 28.
After we had companyveyed to learned Counsel for the petitioners that we companyld number companysider the supplementary petition which the respondent had numberopportunity of meeting, the supplementary petition was withdrawn.
Another reason for the displeasure of the Chief Minister, as alleged in the petition, related to certain orders which petitioner number 1 had passed as Commissioner, Patiala Division, in a revenue case known as the Sangrur case.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS J. This is a writ petition.
They have moved this Court under Art.
In the affidavit made by Sardar Hardayal Singh, he has stated that he was entrusted with the investigation of Sethis case because of its technical nature and also because his sphere of duty as a Gazetted Officer attached to the Criminal Investigation Department was the whole of the State in view of the memorandum number 9581 H 51/7912 dated October 26, 1951.
It is alleged that the Chief Minister was annoyed with petitioner number 1, because the latter did number show his readiness to give evidence for the prosecution in a case known as the Karnal Murder Case later referred to as the Grewal case in which one D. S. Grewal, then Superintendent of Police, Karnal, and some other police officials were, along with others, accused of some serious offences.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
Petitioner number 1 was at the time Com missioner of Ambala, and he alleges that he was told by the Chief Minister that it was proposed to cite the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Inspector General of Police as prosecution witnesses in the said case and it would be in the fitness of things that petitioner number 1 should also figure as a prosecution witness to this suggestion petitioner number 1 gave a somewhat dubious reply to the effect that his appearance as a prosecution witness might or might number help the prosecution.
This was addressed to Ujager Singh, Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. The case was then registered by Sardar Sampuran Singh, Inspector of Police, Police Station Chandigarh, and the investigation was in charge of Sardar Bir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. The legal position as to the institution of Dhingras case and its investigation is the same as in Sethis case.
That case was transferred by this Court to a Special Judge, at Delhi, who companymenced the trial sometime in May June 1959.
Briefly stated the case of the petitioners is that petitioner number 1 had the misfortune to incur the wrath of the Chief Minister of the State.
This was addressed to Sardar Hardayal Singh, S. P. Thereupon Sardar Hardayal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Amritsar, appears to have drawn up a first information report.
59 of 1960.
