A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The Supreme Court upheld the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision dismissing a revision petition filed by the appellant, Gurdev Singh Bhalla, challenging an order under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This order, issued by the Special Judge, Bathinda, allowed the summoning of the appellant and three other police officials based on allegations that they extorted a substantial sum from Devraj Miglani, an accused in a separate case involving misappropriation of funds. The court determined there was sufficient prima facie evidence against the police officials for demanding money under coercion from Devraj and his family. Consistent witness statements from the informant and his relatives substantiated claims of threats, torture, and a large sum demand in exchange for lenient treatment of the accused during his detention. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the trial court’s summoning order intact.
Keywords: Section 319 CrPC, Misappropriation, Custodial Torture, Prima Facie Evidence, Police Misconduct
B) CASE DETAILS
- i) Judgement Cause Title: Gurdev Singh Bhalla v. State of Punjab & Ors
- ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2024
- iii) Judgement Date: 05 January 2024
- iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
- v) Quorum: Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
- vi) Author: Vikram Nath, J.
- vii) Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 319 : 2024 INSC 22
- viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Section 319 CrPC, Section 19 Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 197 CrPC, Sections 166, 383, 385 Indian Penal Code, Sections 7, 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act.
- ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None
- x) Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Police Misconduct, Evidence Law
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
This case concerns an appeal against a High Court order upholding a trial court’s decision to summon the appellant, a police inspector, and other officials under Section 319 CrPC. The background involves allegations that police officials demanded and received money under coercion from the family of an accused in a separate misappropriation case. Following consistent statements by witnesses supporting these allegations, the trial court found grounds for a prima facie case, justifying summoning the officials to face trial. The appellant contested this decision, citing procedural and factual objections, but the High Court dismissed his plea. This judgment addresses the Supreme Court’s stance on whether sufficient prima facie evidence existed to support the summoning order.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd. filed a complaint on 18 December 2012, alleging misappropriation of funds by Devraj Miglani, resulting in an FIR at Phul Police Station, Bathinda. Devraj was eventually arrested, and the case was transferred to the Vigilance Bureau, where the appellant served as the investigating officer. Allegations later emerged from Devraj’s son, Puneet Miglani, who claimed that police officials, including the appellant, demanded a significant sum of Rs. 24 lakhs in exchange for leniency towards Devraj during his custody.
Puneet’s statement under Section 161 CrPC narrated how the appellant and other officials threatened and tortured Devraj to extract money. This was further corroborated by Devraj’s niece, who witnessed demands made by Head Constable Kikkar Singh at her workplace, attempting to collect money under duress. Despite initial police reports only implicating Kikkar Singh, further examination led to an application under Section 319 CrPC for summoning the appellant and three other officials, which the trial court allowed. The High Court later affirmed this order, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether the trial court was justified in summoning the appellant and other officials under Section 319 CrPC based on prima facie evidence. ii) Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the revision petition by failing to examine the necessity of sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i) Lack of Allegation in Initial Complaint: The appellant contended that the initial complaint did not mention him; rather, allegations only surfaced later.
ii) Insufficiency of Prima Facie Evidence: Relying on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the appellant argued that the requirements for invoking Section 319 CrPC were not met, as there was no direct evidence implicating him.
iii) Motivated Complaint: The appellant argued that Puneet Miglani’s allegations were retaliatory, as the appellant had acted against Devraj in a separate case.
iv) Sanction Requirement: He further argued that the lack of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 CrPC should have precluded the summoning order, asserting that the High Court failed to appreciate this procedural safeguard.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i) Consistency of Witness Statements: The respondents highlighted consistent statements from the informant and other witnesses, asserting that these clearly established a prima facie case of extortion by the police officials, including the appellant.
ii) Evidence of Coercion and Demand: They underscored that recorded conversations and corroborative testimonies demonstrated that police officials, acting under the appellant’s direction, attempted to coerce money from Devraj’s family.
iii) Adequate Grounds for Summoning: They argued that the trial court’s summoning order complied with Section 319 CrPC and cited the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab to justify the addition of new accused based on prima facie evidence.
H) JUDGEMENT
a. RATIO DECIDENDI
The court emphasized that Section 319 CrPC enables the trial court to summon any individual if it finds prima facie evidence indicating their involvement in the offense. The testimonies of the informant and his family provided consistent details of coercion by the police officials, fulfilling the requirements set forth in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab. Therefore, the trial court acted within its powers by summoning the appellant and others based on credible witness statements and corroborative evidence.
b. OBITER DICTA
The court noted the procedural and factual complexities but refrained from discussing the specific details of witness testimonies to avoid influencing the ongoing trial. It clarified that its observations should not interfere with the trial court’s objective examination of the case on its merits.
c. GUIDELINES
- Application of Section 319 CrPC: When prima facie evidence exists, Section 319 permits summoning of additional accused, even at the trial stage.
- Sanction Requirement: Sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 CrPC may not be necessary where the alleged acts are beyond the official duties of the accused.
- Protection for Investigating Officials: The court affirmed that procedural safeguards for police officials should not hinder justice, especially where evidence points to misconduct or abuse of power.
I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order, confirming that the consistent testimonies against the police officials justified the summoning order. This case reinforces the wide discretionary powers vested in courts under Section 319 CrPC while underscoring the need for accountability among law enforcement personnel. The ruling highlights that procedural barriers, such as sanction requirements, should not obstruct justice where prima facie evidence demonstrates abuse of power by public officials.
J) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014 (1) RCR 623
b. Important Statutes Referred
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 319
- Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 166, 383, 385
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 13(2)
