Supreme Court Upholds Summoning of Police Officers in Corruption Case

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated January 5, 2024, upheld the summoning of a police inspector and three other officers accused of demanding and accepting bribes in a corruption case. The case, which stemmed from an alleged extortion attempt by police officials against a businessman’s family, highlights the court’s firm stance against misuse of power by law enforcement.

Background of the Case

The case originated with an FIR (No. 91/2012) filed by Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd. against Devraj Miglani, accusing him of misappropriating paddy worth ₹4.18 crores. The investigation was transferred to the Vigilance Bureau in Bathinda, where the appellant, Inspector Gurdev Singh Bhalla, was assigned as the investigating officer. Devraj was arrested and remanded to police custody.

Subsequently, Devraj’s son, Puneet Kumar Miglani, filed a complaint alleging that police officials, including the appellant, had demanded bribes for favorable treatment of his father in custody. The complaint led to a separate FIR (No. 11/2013), charging Head Constable Kikkar Singh under Sections 166, 383, and 385 of the IPC, along with provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant later filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking the summoning of Inspector Gurdev Singh Bhalla, Dy.S.P. Janak Singh, and two other officers.

The Trial Court initially dismissed the application, citing a lack of required sanction. However, the High Court overruled this, stating that sanction was not required. The Trial Court then allowed the application, summoning the four officers. The appellant challenged this decision in the High Court, which dismissed his revision petition. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

Whether the summoning of police officers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was justified.
Whether the allegations of corruption were credible and warranted a trial.
Whether the absence of prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was a valid ground to challenge the summoning order.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant, Inspector Gurdev Singh Bhalla, argued that:

The complaint initially mentioned only a demand of ₹50,000 but was later expanded to ₹24 lakh, indicating fabrication.
The summoning application was a retaliatory move by Puneet Miglani, as the appellant had deposed against his father in another case.
The statements used to summon him were unreliable and lacked corroboration.
The lower courts had focused only on the issue of sanction, without properly assessing the merits of the case under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Punjab and the complainant’s representative countered that:

There was sufficient evidence to justify a trial, including witness testimonies and recorded conversations.
The accused officers had harassed Devraj’s family to extract bribes.
The complaint was not motivated by personal vendetta but was backed by consistent statements from multiple witnesses.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the evidence and the legal principles involved.

1. Justification for Summoning Under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

“The parameters laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh (2014) stand fully satisfied. There appears to be prima facie evidence on record to make it a triable case as against the appellant.”

The Court emphasized that Section 319 Cr.P.C. allows summoning of additional accused if evidence suggests their involvement in the crime.

2. Validity of the Corruption Allegations

“The consistent case right from the initial complaint till the trial statements supports the prosecution’s allegations that the accused police officials attempted to extort money in exchange for lenient treatment of Devraj.”

The Court noted that multiple witness statements corroborated the claim that the accused demanded bribes in exchange for avoiding torture and ensuring favorable judicial outcomes.

3. No Requirement for Prior Sanction

“The High Court correctly ruled that no prior sanction under the PC Act or Cr.P.C. was required in this case, as the allegations were against officers acting outside their official duties.”

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that sanction was necessary, holding that bribery and extortion are not protected official acts.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, allowing the trial against the police officers to proceed. The Court ruled:

“In view of the discussion made above, there appears to be prima facie evidence on record to make it a triable case as against the appellant. We, accordingly, are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.”

The Court directed that any observations made in its judgment should not influence the trial proceedings.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Police officers can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if sufficient evidence exists against them.
Corruption allegations must be assessed based on the consistency of witness statements and corroborative evidence.
Bribery and extortion do not qualify as official duties, and thus, no sanction is required for prosecution.
The credibility of witnesses and their prior statements play a crucial role in corruption trials.

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring accountability in law enforcement and preventing the abuse of power for personal gains.

Petitioner Name: Gurdev Singh Bhalla.
Respondent Name: State of Punjab & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Rajesh Bindal.
Place Of Incident: Bathinda, Punjab.
Judgment Date: 05-01-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: gurdev-singh-bhalla-vs-state-of-punjab-&-or-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-05-01-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Vikram Nath
See all petitions in Judgment by Rajesh Bindal
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category