The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed to consider Reinstatement of Police Acquitted in Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) Case and observed that UAPA and Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) cannot be Invoked by Writing letter from SSP.
The petitioner joined Punjab State Police and a FIR under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC came to be registered against various private persons and police officials. During the course of investigation, Section 16 of the Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was added. The FIR was registered alleging that petitioners in connivance with others have sold arms and ammunition to naxalites.
The respondent-department initiated departmental proceedings besides criminal proceedings against the petitioner and others. The petitioner came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.06.2011. The petitioner unsuccessfully preferred an appeal as well as mercy petition before higher authorities. The mercy petition was dismissed on 18.01.2021 and the petitioner came to be acquitted by trial Court vide judgment date 30.11.2019.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that a number of police officials were charged with the same set of allegations and they were jointly tried by CJM, Mansa. The petitioners have not been reinstated, however, co-accused namely C. Sukhbir Singh, HC Jodh Singh, HC Surjit Singh and HC Manjit Singh, after their acquittal have been reinstated. There are two co-accused who have passed away during the pendency of trial and their family members have been extended benefit of family pension.
A Single Bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed that “It is apt to notice here that the SSP invoked Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 without ascertaining even the complete title of these Acts as well as the scope of invoking these Acts. These are special Acts and cannot be invoked by writing a letter by SSP. This shows that on the one hand, there were serious allegations against the erring police officials and on the other hand, a casual approach was adopted which resulted into acquittal of the officials. Apart from invoking UAPA and PLMA, provisions of Arms Act, 1959 were invoked.”
“It comes out that the petitioners on the same set of allegations were subjected to departmental as well as criminal proceedings. They were subjected to these proceedings along with other police officials. All the police officials were subjected to same punishment in the departmental proceedings and all the police officials have been acquitted in the criminal proceedings. Few of police officials after their acquittal have been reinstated” the Court concluded.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
