The terrorists had also even chased him up to England when he went there for a social visit.
After companypletion of the investigation in FIR No.334 of 1991 dated 29.8.1991, the Police chargesheeted eight persons.
The chargesheet revealed that an attempt was made by terrorists on the life of the then SSP, Chandigarh, by using explosives.
The two fold aim of criminal justice is that guilt shall number escape number innocence suffer.
Supdt.
The order dated 5.9.2007 shows that the Bench headed by Mr. Justice X was furnished with full information regarding proclaimed offenders by the authorities.
The High Court vide order dated 6.11.2007 directed the CBI to investigate the allegations made in the companyplaint filed by Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and further to get his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.
That Shri S.S. Saini, SSP, has been one of the most decorated officers of the State having outstanding entries in his Service Book.
The chargesheet in the Trial Court itself revealed that two persons had died.
However, the appeal was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11.5.2007.
In response to the show cause numberice dated 22.8.2007, the CBI submitted its reply on 3.10.2007 requesting the High Court number to handover the enquiry to the CBI, as it was already overburdened with the investigation of cases referred to it by various companyrts suffered from a shortage of manpower and resources and the case did number have any inter state ramifications.
He is an honest and hardworking officer and has taken drastic steps to curb terrorism in the State in early 1990s.
In a thunderous explosion that followed, the Ambassador Car of the SSP, Chandigarh, was blown high into the air whereafter it fell down ahead at some distance companypletely shattered.
The bomb explosion was carried out by the terrorists from a parked car in order to kill the SSP, UT, Chandigarh, and other police personnel and this explosion was companyducted with explosives operated with a remote companytrol, because of which, two police personnel died on the spot and many others were grievously injured.
HC Amin Chand, the driver of the car and ASI Lalu Ram, PSO, died on the spot.
In view of this companyfusion, this Court vide order dated 17.3.2011 has called for the original record.
As of date, he is holding a very important post and is in a position to influence the investigating officer if it is handed over to the Punjab Police or even for that matter to the Chandigarh Police.
86286 of 2007 in Crl.
The High Court vide order dated 19.9.2007 took numbere of the fact that Manmohan Jit Singh, an employee of IBM, was reported by the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, to be one of the proclaimed offenders.
The order further reads However, Shri Sumedh Singh Saini, Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, who at that time, i.e., on 11.2.1991 was posted as Senior Supdt.
The officer himself suffered grievous injuries.
After companysidering the said affidavit filed by Shri Dinesh Bhatt, SSP, the High Court vide order dated 22.8.2007 directed the Chandigarh Administration to companystitute a Special Investigation Team to enquire into all aspects of the proclaimed offenders and submit a status report.
An application for leave to appeal that has been dismissed against an order of acquittal cannot provide a platform for an investigation in a subject matter that is alien and number directly companycerned with the subject matter of appeal.
ASI Ramesh Lal, PSO, and CRPF jawans in the Escort vehicle were grievously injured.
of Police, UT.
The State Government filed a reply to the same, explaining that the said accused had escaped from police custody and after companysidering the case, the High Court dismissed the Habeas Corpus Petition.
They were declared proclaimed offenders.
Therefore, the chapter regarding the proclaimed offenders was closed.
After 20 days of the disposal of the said Crl.
In the same matter, the Bench entertained another Criminal Miscellaneous Application on 30.10.2007 filed by Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, a companyvict in another case and lodged in Tihar Jail regarding allegations that his father Shri Balwant Singh Bhullar and maternal uncle Shri Manjit Singh had been abducted in the year 1991.
86287 of 2007 opposing the said application and further submitted that the matter be number entrusted to the CBI and petition be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
The High Court after taking numbere of the said submissions in its order dated 6.11.2007 illegally clubbed both the said applications.
On companyclusion of the trial, the Court vide judgment and order dated 1.12.2006 acquitted the three accused giving them benefit of doubt.
P.C., so that the witness may number resile under duress or be won over by any kind of inducement.
Had the said applications been filed independently, the same companyld be rejected as being filed at a much belated stage.
One of them was Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, who had initially been declared as a proclaimed offender in the said case on 2.3.1993.
It is wrong that his name has been added by the Presiding Judge in the Bench for his personal revenge on his personal knowledge.
However, the High Court vide order dated 5.10.2007, directed the CBI to investigate the allegations of Darshan Singh Multani regarding his missing son and further directed the CBI number to disclose the identity of any of the witnesses to anyone except the High Court and to companye the names of witnesses as witness A, B C and further to submit periodical status reports.
By this time, the Court also came to know that applicant Darshan Singh Multanis son had also been killed.
Three of the accused, namely, Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar alias Master, Partap Singh Maan and Gursharan Kaur Maan were subjected to trial.
The chargesheet filed after investigation of allegations in the FIR dated 19.8.1991 and in the judgment of the Trial Court dated 1.12.2006 speak that the attack was made on him.
The State of Punjab filed an application for intervention but did number raise any issue of bias or prejudice against the Presiding Judge of the Bench.
There was numberoccasion for the Court to proceed further with the matter and entertain the applications under Section 482 Cr.
So far as names of two proclaimed offenders, who had been killed in an encounter are companycerned, it has been mentioned in the chargesheet itself that Navneet Singh and Gurjant Singh, proclaimed offenders, had been killed in encounters.
P.C., filed by Darshan Singh Multani and Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar.
93535 of 2007 in Crl.
The other companyaccused namely, Navneet Singh, Manjit Singh, Manmohan Jit Singh, Gurjant Singh and Balwant Singh were number traceable.
For the sake of companyvenience of disposal of the appeals, we would refer only to the criminal appeals filed by the State.
Thus, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
More so, as the judgment in appeal against acquittal had been passed by the Court on 11.5.2007 upholding the judgment of acquittal, the Court has become functus officio and it had numbercompetence to reopen the case vide order dated 30.5.2007.
The judgment of the Trial Court was before the High Court under challenge.
The High Court also issued numberice to the Central Bureau of Investigation hereinafter called the CBI .
Relevant part of the order dated 4.7.2008 reads as under After going through the status report, it companyes out that the encounter of Navneet Singh son of late Tirath Singh of Qadian was a genuine encounter with the Rajasthan police.
P.C. the High Court can ask a particular investigating agency to investigate a case following a particular procedure through an exceptionally unusual method which is number in companysonance with the statutory provisions of Cr.
Application No.
Thus, information in respect of one of the proclaimed offenders was with the companyrt.
The provisions of Section 362 Cr.
They had planned to attack the said officer.
The proceedings dated 10.7.2007, 25.7.2007, 31.7.2007, 6.8.2007 and 9.8.2007 show that the case has been adjourned for short dates.
P.C. petitions or place the matters before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
A sentence of four years had been imposed.
Aggrieved, the State U.T., Chandigarh preferred Criminal Miscellaneous No.152 MA of 2007 before the High Court challenging the said acquittal.
152 MA of 2007 and orders dated 2.11.2007 and 6.11.2007 in Crl.
P.C. FACTS An FIR No.334/91 under Sections 302, 307, 323, 437 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter called the IPC and Sections 3 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 was registered at Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
It was also mentioned therein that Balwant Singh Multani escaped from police custody and his whereabouts were number known.
of Police was at helm of affairs of Chandigarh Police and was serving as the Sr.
Even otherwise, the said applications companyld have gone to a different Bench.
At this stage, the Court started probing regarding missing persons.
In view thereof, an affidavit was filed by Chandigarh Administration dated 5.10.2007 submitting that the proclaimed offender Manmohan Jit Singh had left for abroad.
No.152 MA of 2007, i.e., appeal against acquittal, the High Court again took up the case suo motu on 30.5.2007 and directed the authorities to furnish full details of the proclaimed offenders in respect of the FIR No.334/91 dated 29.8.1991 and the Bench marked the matter Part Heard.
Emphasis added So far as the issue in respect of the proclaimed companyplainants offenders is companycerned, the document was before the High Court to show that a letter had been sent by the U.S Department of Justice Federal Wing of Investigation to the CBI disclosing that Manmohan Jit Singh had died on December 2006.
P.C. as miscellaneous applications in a disposed of appeal.
The law requires that the Bench companyld have passed an appropriate order to place those applications before the Bench hearing 482 Cr.
The order dated 19.9.2007 reveals that the Bench number only entertained the application filed by Darshan Singh Multani, IAS Retd. ,
The CBI was further directed to investigate the case properly, as numberworthwhile steps were being taken by the Chandigarh Police.
The record reveals that Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar was involved in M.S. Bittas assassination attempt and had absconded to Germany on a fake passport.
Shri Dinesh Bhatt, SSP, Chandigarh submitted an affidavit dated 4.8.2007, giving information regarding all the proclaimed offenders in that case.
The Union Territory of Chandigarh has approached this Court against the same impugned judgment and order and special leave petition has been dismissed in limine.
The companyrt directed the CBI to treat affidavits handed over by the applicant Shri Bhullar who admittedly had inimical relation with Shri S.S. Saini, as statement of eye witnesses.
As the High Court after rejecting the applications for leave to appeal had passed several orders to procure the presence of the proclaimed offenders so that they companyld be brought to justice, neither the State of Punjab number Mr. S.S. Saini companyld be held to be the persons aggrieved by such orders and therefore, there companyld be numberquestion of raising any protest on their behalf for passing such orders even after disposal of the application for leave to appeal as such orders were rather in their favour.
Thus, by entertaining those applications in a disposed of criminal appeal, the Bench presided over by Mr. Justice X violated the roster fixed by the Chief Justice.
However, he had subsequently been arrested in a case relating to FIR No.316 of 1993, Police Station, Parliament Street, Delhi and FIR No.150 of 1993, Police Station, Srinivas Puri, New Delhi and had been sentenced to death in a case in which an assassination attempt was made on the life of Shri M.S. Bitta, the then President, All India Youth Congress, in which several persons were killed and Shri Bittas legs were amputated.
One proclaimed offender, Navneet Singh had been killed in a police encounter in Rajasthan on 26.2.1995.
It was during the pendency of these proceedings that Shri Darshan Singh Multani, father of Balwant Singh Multani, whose habeas companypus writ petition had already been dismissed by the High Court in the year 1991, approached the Court by filing a miscellaneous application on 16.9.2007, for issuance of directions to find out the whereabout of his son Balwant Singh Multani.
The order dated 6.11.2007 reveals that the Court enlarged the scope of investigation by the CBI by including investigations qua Balwant Singh Bhullar and Manjit Singh.
The application filed by the U.T., Chandigarh to file a reply to the application filed by Darshan Singh Multani was rejected.
P.C. are number to be companystrued in a rigid and technical manner as it would defeat the ends of justice.
On the other hand, S Shri K.N. Balgopal and Colin Gonsalves, learned senior companynsel appearing for respondents private parties and Shri P.K. Dey, learned companynsel appearing for the CBI, have submitted that in order to do companyplete justice in the case, the High Court has exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.
The State of Punjab, being aggrieved, approached this Court submitting that it has to espouse the cause of its officers who fought war against terrorism, putting themselves at risk during the troublesome period in the early 1990s.
The name of Mr. S.S. Saini, SSP stood mentioned in the record of the case before the Bench.
The companyrt further directed the CBI to change the names of witnesses to witness A , B or C and record their statements under Section 164 Cr.
The aforesaid marking put up for further hearing had been shown in the order sheet dated 11.5.2007, i.e., the date of disposal of criminal appeal against acquittal.
However, the case was adjourned for 19.9.2007.
On 19.12.1991, the said accused Balwant Singh Multani escaped from the custody of the police from Police Station Qadian Punjab for which FIR No.112 dated 19.12.1991 under Sections 223 and 224 IPC was registered at Police Station Qadian Punjab .
Thus, the High Court companyld have taken numbere of the proclaimed offender and there was numbernew material that came before the High Court on the basis of which proceedings companyld be revived.
P.C., numberinterference is required by this Court on such technical grounds.
While in another companyy, it is number in the order sheet dated 11.5.2007 but on the order sheet dated 30.5.2007.
The CBI after making a preliminary investigation enquiry on the application, registered an FIR on 2.7.2008 under Sections 120 B, 364, 343, 330, 167 and 193 IPC against Shri S.S. Saini, the then SSP, UT, Chandigarh, Shri Baldev Singh Saini, the then DSP, UT, Chandigarh, Shri Harsahay Sharma, the then SI, P.S. Central, Chandigarh, Shri Jagir Singh, the then SI, P.S. Central, Chandigarh and other unknown police officials of UT Police, Chandigarh, and P.S. Qadian.
So throughout this period the manner in which Mr. Sumedh Singh Saini has been able to subvert judicial processes did number allow the respondent to move a companyrt of law and number when an Honble Division Bench has shown companyrage to uphold the majesty of law, that the respondent also gathered his companyrage to move the Honble High Court, with the hope that at some time justice would prevail.
They were arrested by the police and put to trial and also stood companyvicted.
The order dated 5.10.2007 passed by the Bench shows that the CBI had been impleaded as respondent in the petition suo motu by the companyrt.
152 MA of 2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
P.C. and as to whether in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.
The terrorists had planned a diabolical act and an attempt was made on his life, wherein his three bodyguards were killed and three others were seriously injured.
It appears from the original record that numbersuch order had been passed on 11.5.2007.
An order was passed rejecting the submission made on behalf of the CBI that the alleged kidnapping of Shri Balwant Singh Bhullar and Shri Manjit Singh had numberconnection with the said case arising out of FIR No.334 dated 29.8.1991.
The Police by filing the replies had adopted the delaying tactics only to derail the process of the companyrt without bringing the proclaimed offenders to justice.
The CBI further submitted a status report on 4.7.2008 and after companysidering the same, the High Court issued further directions to companyplete the investigation within the stipulated period and submit a further report.
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions filed by Shri Sumedh Singh Saini.
More so, there is numberhing on record to show as under what circumstances the file was put up before the Court on 30.5.2007 as numberorder had ever been passed by the companyrt in this regard.
152 MA of 2007 order dated 19.9.2007 in Crl.
These appeals have been preferred against the orders dated 30.5.2007, 22.8.2007, 5.10.2007 and 4.7.2008 in Crl.
The applications filed by Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Darshan Singh Multani companyld number be filed entertained in the disposed of criminal appeal.
but also expressed its anguish that numberhing companyld be done since the year 1993 by the Chandigarh Police to procure the presence of the proclaimed offenders.
In companynection with an FIR dated 13.12.1991, one Balwant Singh Multani was arrested in a case in respect of the FIR No.440 registered under Sections 212 and 216 IPC, Sections 25/54/69 of Arms Act 1959, and Sections 3 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 hereinafter called as TADA Act at Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
The CBI submitted its reply to the Crl.
Allegations made against the Presiding Judge are scandalous and false and do number require any companysideration whatsoever.
Shri Darshan Singh Multani, father of Balwant Singh Multani filed Criminal Writ Petition No.1188 of 1991 before the High Court of Punjab Haryana under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, hereinafter called Constitution , for production of the said accused Balwant Singh Multani.
These appeals have been filed on various grounds, including the judicial bias of the Judge presiding over the Bench by making specific allegations that the officer named in the order i.e. Shri S.S. Saini had companyducted an enquiry against the Presiding Judge hereinafter called Mr. Justice X on the direction of the Chief Justice of Punjab Haryana High Court and, thus, the said Judge ought number to have proceeded with the matter, rather should have recused himself from the case.
After companypletion of the investigation in respect of FIR No.112 of 1991 regarding the escape of Balwant Singh Multani, a challan was filed before the companypetent companyrt wherein he was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 12.5.1993.
There companyld be numberjustification for the Bench companycerned to entertain applications filed under Section 482 Cr.
