Proceedings against Ludhiana MP may have been initiated on DM complaint, not FIR, says court

Bittu was booked in 2011 for allegedly violating the Section 144 of the CrPC imposed by the District Magistrate, by taking out a procession and raising slogans near Gate No 1 of PGI.

Acquitting Ludhiana Member of Parliament, Ravneet Singh Bittu, of charges of disobeying the orders of the District Magistrate of Chandigarh in 2011, the Judicial Magistrate First Class Sachin Kumar observed that proceedings against Bittu may have been initiated on the complaint in writing by the District Magistrate himself or by any of his superior public servant and not by lodging an FIR.

Bittu was acquitted of the charges under the section 188 (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of the IPC on August 26.

Bittu was booked in 2011 for allegedly violating the Section 144 of the CrPC imposed by the District Magistrate, by taking out a procession and raising slogans near Gate No 1 of PGI. A case was registered against Bittu, on a complaint filed by Sub-Inspector Eram Rizvi (IO), according to whom, Bittu was briefed that the Section 144 of the CrPC was imposed and he was not allowed to take out the procession. However, allegedly, Bittu violated the orders.

Acquitting Bittu, eight years after the charges were levied on him, JMIC Sachin Kumar observed in the judgment, “…if an action is required to be taken against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under the section 188 of the IPC, then, appropriate remedy was that a concerned public servant or should file a complaint in writing. In the present case, it is alleged that the accused violated the order promulgated by the District Magistrate of Chandigarh. Therefore, the proceeding may be initiated on the complaint in writing by District Magistrate himself or by any of his superior public servant and not by lodging FIR.”

The court pointed out that neither Bittu’s presence on the spot was conclusively proven and nor was it proven that he was a member of a group of over five persons, who had come to PGI and violated the order under Section 144 of the CrPC, as there was no independent witness and the complainant herself was the Investigating Officer (IO) in the case.

“The complainant is herself the IO of the case and she admitted that there was no order by a superior officer that the investigation should not be handed over to any other officer. As SI Iram Rizwi was the complainant, she should not have proceeded with the investigation as it violates the right of the accused regarding fair investigation. All the witnesses are official witnesses and there is no independent corroboration of their testimony. The investigation proceedings are vitiated due to this fact,” read the judgment.

The court further held that “…there is no documentary evidence regarding the presence of the accused on the spot. The complainant has herself admitted in her cross-examination that it was correct that there was no documentary evidence that Ravneet Bittu had come to PGI and had violated any orders as alleged. The complainant had admitted that she does not have any record that a wireless or telephonic message was sent to summon the videographer and photographer to the spot to collect evidence in the regard to her complaint…until and unless the presence of the accused on the spot was proved, it will not be proved that he violated the order under the section 144 of the CrPC.”

The court added that even if the accused was present on the spot, it was not proved that he was a member of the group consisting of five or more persons. “The only overt act attributed to the accused was that he came in a group of about 200 people and raised slogans. No person from the PGI was involved in the investigation, nor the statement of any person was recorded from the PGI regarding the presence of the accused inside PGI,” observed the court.

Source: Read Full Article