No pressure, DGP tells Bench

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 17

The Haryana Civil Services (Judicial) examination paper leak case has virtually put Chandigarh’s investigative and prosecuting agency to the test with the Punjab and Haryana High Court examining their conduct on a regular basis. So far, their poor performance has earned the Chandigarh Police a rap on its knuckles.

The issues

The full Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice GS Sandhawalia is miffed over the fact that six statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC by a magistrate were handed over to an accused in the case on an application filed by him.

To make matters worse, the order by the District Courts for handing over of the copies to accused-Registrar (Recruitment) Balwinder Sharma was neither challenged by 

the prosecuting agency before the High Court, nor brought to the full Bench’s notice, though it was monitoring the proceedings on a regular basis.

Statements under Section 164 are admissible in evidence unlike the ones recorded by the police under Section 161 of the CrPC and are kept in a sealed cover. The Bench, during the course of the hearing, also noticed that copies of statements sealed before the magistrate were lying in open in police files. 

The Chandigarh Police also placed themselves in the dock for not bringing to the notice of the High Court another application moved by the accused before the District Courts for supplying the mobile and landline numbers of SIT members “for the purpose of investigation of their conduct”.

The accused had specifically alleged that SIT members were “being influenced by some higher-ups and were taking instructions from them from time to time for conducting investigation in a particular manner with misconception and a biased mind”.

The application was filed on January 29. The court below, in its orders dated April 10, directed the furnishing of phone numbers, official as well as private, of the SIT members in a sealed cover so that a request could be made to the service providers concerned to preserve the record.

A visibly upset Bench observed that the investigating and prosecuting agency did not think that aspiration was being cast. Instead of taking the matter seriously, they kept quiet. “Apparently, proper system of investigation is not being followed, maybe in the absence of proper guidelines”.

The hearing

As UT Director General of Police Tajender Singh Luthra appeared in the High Court during the resumed hearing on Thursday afternoon, the Bench observed that complicity was apparent. It also asked the DGP whether there was indeed some pressure on the investigating agency. 

“The accused made a mention of pressure. If there is any pressure, do let us know… This is the first time ever an accused has sought the call details of SIT the members…  The accused is quite loud, rest is all mystery,” the Bench asserted.

Accompanied by UT special public prosecutor RS Rai and advocate Gautam Dutt, Luthra denied pressure and  assured the Bench of personal supervision of the investigation on a day-to-day basis for a truly fair trial. 

The Bench also censured the police for the slipshod manner in which the matter was handled. “No effort was made to take us into confidence… We had asked initially whether you had the expertise to handle the case… We do not doubt the integrity or competence of the police. The question is of following a proper procedure…”

The Bench added that the prosecuting agency said nothing in response to the application for supplying Section 164 statements. The court below was not even informed of the disinclination to hand over the copies as the investigation was still on. 

“Complicity at some level appears to be there,” the Bench asserted, while asking the police to devise a mechanism for vetting replies by the Director, Prosecution.

The background

The examination for filling 109 posts in the subordinate judiciary was conducted in July last year. A Punjab and Haryana High Court committee, through the Haryana Public Service Commission, had invited applications for filling the posts.

Soon after the examination was conducted, a candidate, Suman, filed a petition for registration of a criminal case to uncover the scam. Suman alleged that she was contacted by two candidates, Sushila and Sunita, claiming that they had the examination paper. Suman also alleged at least two questions were disclosed to her a day prior to the examination. She further alleged Rs 1 crore was demanded, but she declined.

  Taking up the matter in its initial stages, Justice Kuldip Singh of the High Court observed Sunita was topping in the general category with exceptionally high marks. Sushila, too, was topping in the reserved category, again with exceptionally high marks. Both had committed minimum errors.

Looking into the paper leak allegations, the in-house committee found that some of the candidates had access to the question paper. It also found that no less than 760 calls and messages were exchanged between Registrar (Recruitment) Balwinder Sharma and a candidate during the past year. The finding prompted the committee to recommend registration of an FIR against him and the accused candidates. An Additional District and Sessions Judge-rank officer, Sharma’s forthwith transfer from the post pending further action was also recommended. The “HCS (Judicial Branch) Preliminary Examination-2017” was, subsequently, scrapped.

Timeline

• Sept 15, 2017: HC scraps HCS (Judicial Branch) examination
• Sept 15, 2017: HC directs registration of FIR after accepting recommendations of a committee. FIR for cheating and other offences registered under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409, 420, 120-B and 201 of the IPC.
• Oct 2, 2017: Supreme Court passes order in suo motu transfer petition, following which case record sent to it.
• December 8, 2017: Matter sent back to the High Court