Follow Us
Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, January 17
Less than a week after the Punjab Director-General of Police was directed to initiate “suitable disciplinary proceedings” against the Ludhiana Commissioner of Police for showing scant respect for judicial orders, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has accepted his unconditional and unqualified apology.
The Bench of Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu also clarified that disciplinary proceedings would not be initiated against the Commissioner of Police and other police officers. The directions were issued after the police failed to produce a convict in the Court.
As the case came up for resumed hearing, Commissioner of Police Sukhchain Singh Gill filed an affidavit explaining the circumstances in which the convicts could not be produced before the Court. Taking up the matter, Justice Sharma on behalf of the Bench asserted that the contents of the affidavits filed now and earlier were at variance. “However, we have restrained ourselves to delve in the matter deeply since Sukhchain Singh Gill, Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, present in Court, has tendered an unconditional, unqualified apology and assured the Court to comply with the orders of the Court punctually and faithfully,” Justice Sharma asserted.
The Bench, on December 21 last year, had ordered for the presence of convicts Apninder Singh and Rajesh Kumar. Rajesh Kumar came to the Court on his own.
Justice Sharma had, on a previous date of hearing, asserted the Commissioner of Police was specifically directed to ensure the presence of both convicts. But an affidavit was filed by the Ludhiana, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Central), and not the Commissioner of Police, for non-production of the convicts. It was stated in the affidavit that the raids were conducted at the houses of the convicts and their in-laws, but they could not be traced.
Justice Sharma asserted the police was duty-bound to maintain the rule of law and also to produce the convicts before the Court to be heard on the quantum of sentence. The affidavit filed before the Court was vague, evasive and misleading. The entire approach of the police, rather, was casual and irresponsible.
The convicts had initially moved the High Court against the judgment and order dated July 28, 2003, whereby the Ludhiana Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, had convicted and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life in a murder case. This Court had later suspended their sentence in 2006.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Bench on a previous date of hearing converted the conviction and sentence of both appellants from Section 302 (murder) to Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC. Before parting with the judgment, the Bench sentenced the convicts to custody period already undergone.
Previous hearing
Justice Sharma had, on a previous date of hearing, asserted the Commissioner of Police was specifically directed to ensure the presence of both convicts. But an affidavit was filed by the Ludhiana, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Central), and not the Commissioner of Police, for non-production of the convicts. It was stated in the affidavit that the raids were conducted at the houses of the convicts, but they could not be traced.
1
7
8