IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1085 OF 2015
(@ SLP(Crl) No. 2623 of 2015)
State of Rajasthan ... Appellant
Versus
Jainudeen Shekh and Anr. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
The pivotal issue that emanates for consideration in this appeal, by
special leave, is whether the learned Special Judge was justified in
granting compensation of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to each of the
respondents who had been arraigned as accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 8/21(B) and 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, “the NDPS Act”) on the foundation that
there was delay in obtaining the report from the Forensic Science
Laboratory and further the test showed that the seized items did not
contain any contraband article and, therefore, they had suffered illegal
custody, and whether the High Court has correctly appreciated the fact
situation to affirm the view expressed by the learned trial Judge by
opining that the grant of compensation is not erroneous.
2. The facts which are necessary to be stated for adjudication of the
limited issue are that on 02.11.2011, PW-5 Nemichand, SHO, PS Bhimganj
along with PW4, Umrao, Constable and PW6, Om Prakash, Head Constable while
carrying on patrolling duty, noticed the two accused persons together and
seeing the police vehicle, accused Jainuddin speedily moved towards the
kachcha passage near Mangal Pandey circle and on a query being made, he
could not give any satisfactory reply. The accused was searched in
presence of other persons and during the search a polythene bag allegedly
containing intoxicant material was found in the back pocket pant of the
accused-respondent no.1 but he had no licence for it. The polythene bag
weighed 31 gram 170 milligrams. The police prepared two samples of alleged
smack weighing 5 grams each and the remaining was kept in the polythene bag
and sealed. Thereafter the accused-respondent no. 1 was arrested at the
spot and seizure memo was prepared. At that time accused Shabbir was also
taken into custody. Thereafter, an FIR was registered and after
investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 8/21(B) of the NDPS Act
against the accused-respondent no.1 and under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act
against the accused Shabbir.
3. The accused persons denied the charges and stated in their statement
under Section 313 CrPC that they had been falsely implicated.
4. The prosecution in order to establish the charges, examined six
witnesses. Be it noted, the sample that was sent for examination to the
Forensic Science Laboratory on 8.11.2011, chemical analysis thereof was
done on 9.9.2013 and the report was submitted to the court on 28.9.2013 and
it was exhibited as Exhibit P-11. The said document revealed that the
sample contained “caffeine” and “paracetamol” and it did not contain
Diacetylmorphine (heroine) or alkaloid of “Afeem” (Opium). As the report
indicated that the said items were not covered under the category of
intoxicant under NDPS Act, the trial court came to the conclusion that the
charges were not established in any manner.
5. Learned trial Judge, while recording the said conclusion observed
thus:
“In the present case certainly it is the matter of concern that the officer
executing the seizure has no experience with respect to intoxicant
material. Although PW5, Nemi Chand, had found the material as intoxicant
in his testimony merely by checking. Certainly it shows ignorance of the
officer about identification of intoxicant who executed seizure. No
attempt was made by the officer making seizure that he should have either
tasted the material, which was seized, or same should have been provided to
other persons, who were present at the time of seizure, to ensure whether
such material is intoxicant or not. The officer making seizure identified
same as smack merely after smelling the material.
In this perspective it shall be in the interest of justice to mention that
in case there being suspicion over the material being intoxicant or not,
then it is the responsibility of the State Government that immediately such
material should be subjected to chemical analysis, but in the present case
the aforesaid report of Forensic Science Laboratory was submitted into the
court on 28.09.2013 and the chemical analysis was done by the laboratory on
09.09.2013. So it is clear that aforesaid material was subjected to
chemical analysis about 2 years after the occurrence on 02.11.2011 that is
after the period of two years, so certainly it cannot be held as just and
proper procedure.”
6. After so holding, the learned trial Judge opined that despite the
Supreme Court giving the guidelines in Criminal Appeal No. 1640 of 2010 to
the State Governments and Central Government that every State should have
forensic science laboratory at the level of the State as well as the
Division, no appropriate action had been taken by the State Government.
The learned trial Judge also opined that the State Government had not been
able to discharge the responsibility and there should have been an
arrangement to obtain the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory
within a reasonable time. Being of this view, he recorded a judgment of
acquittal in favour of the accused. Thereafter the learned trial Judge
referred to Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
‘the Code’) and opined that a Court of Session can award compensation to
the accused in a case of malicious prosecution and accordingly directed
payment of Rs.1,50,000/- each to both the accused persons.
7. We have heard Mr. S.S. Shamshery, learned AAG for the State of
Rajasthan. Despite notice, there has been no appearance on behalf of the
respondents.
8. Section 250 of the Code confers powers on the Magistrate to grant
compensation on certain conditions being satisfied. A procedure has been
engrafted in the said provision. There are certain cases in which the
learned Sessions Judge can grant compensation. In this context we may
refer with profit to the decision in Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana[1].
The appellant therein was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6(1) of the
Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (for short,
‘TADA’). The defence taken by the accused was that he had been falsely
implicated at the instance of one Hans Raj Lambardar of the village. He
had examined four witnesses in his defence. He was acquitted under Section
6 of the TADA but convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Court
analyzing the evidence on record and taking note of the plea of the
defence, dislodged the judgment of conviction and while doing so, this
Court opined that:-
“....It is unfortunate that the police officers, namely, Head Constable,
Randhir PW 2 and the then Head Constable Jai Dayal, PW 3 foisted a false
case on the appellant for reasons best known to them, which is a very
serious matter. We are informed that the appellant was in custody for a few
days in connection with this case. We, therefore, direct the respondent-
State to pay a sum of Rs. 5000 as compensation to the appellant within two
months. The respondent-State may however recover the said amount from the
police officials, Randhir PW 2 and Jai Dayal, PW 3 (Rs. 2500 each), who are
responsible for false implication of the appellant.”
9. In Mohd. Zahid v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi[2], the appellant had
preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the TADA. The designated court had
found him guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 5 of TADA
and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay
a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two months more. The Court allowed the appeal
and recorded an order of acquittal. In course of analysis, the Court has
opined that certain documents had been interpolated, the evidence of
certain witnesses was absolutely false and that the appellant therein made
a victim of prolonged illegal incarceration due to machination of PWs 5 and
6 and other police personnel and accordingly directed payment of Rs.50,000/-
as compensation.
10. In this context reference to certain other decisions would be
appropriate. In State, represented by Inspector of Police and others v.
N.M.T. Joy Immaculate[3], a three-Judge Bench was dealing with the judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in
a Criminal Revision which was allowed and revision was disposed of with
certain directions. The High Court had granted Rs.1 lakh compensation on
the basis of an affidavit. G.P. Mathur, J., speaking for the learned Chief
Justice and himself, after quashing the order of the High Court has opined
that:-
“The High Court has also awarded Rs. 1 lakh as compensation to the accused
on the ground that she was illegally detained in the police station and the
police personnel committed acts of molestation, obscene violation, etc. It
is noteworthy that after investigation, the police has submitted charge-
sheet against accused Joy Immaculate. Her application for bail was rejected
by the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter by the High Court on 18-1-2002
prior to the decision of the revision. There is absolutely no justification
for awarding compensation to a person who is facing prosecution for a
serious offence like murder even before the trial has commenced. This
direction, therefore, deserves to be set aside.”
Dr. A.R. Lakshmann, J. in his concurring opinion has laid down:-
“Above all, the learned Judge has committed a grave error in awarding a
compensation of Rs 1 lakh on the ground that the police personnel committed
acts of obscene violation, teasing the respondent herein. The learned Judge
has relied upon only on the basis of the affidavit filed in the case for
coming to the conclusion and also on the basis of the assumption that the
respondent was not involved in the incident which will foreclose the
further enquiry ordered by the learned Judge in the matter. There is no
justification for awarding compensation to a person who is facing
prosecution for a serious offence like murder even before the trial has
started.”
11. In this context, we may usefully refer to a two-Judge Bench decision
in Hardeep Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh[4]. In the said case, the
appellant was engaged in running a coaching centre where students were
given tuition to prepare them for entrance tests for different professional
courses. The appellant was arrested and a case under Section 420 read with
Section 34 IPC and other sections was instituted. He was brought to the
police station in handcuffs and his photographs in handcuffs appeared in
the local newspapers. The trial went on for several years and eventually,
he was acquitted after 12 years. Thereafter he filed a complaint before
the Magistrate which was dismissed for lack of sanction. The High Court
being moved had held that complaint was not maintainable and dismissed the
same in limini. Thereafter, the victim moved the Government for grant of
sanction under Section 197 CrPC for prosecuting the Collector and other
government servants which was refused. The said order of refusal came to
be assailed in W.P. No.4777 of 2007. The writ petition was dismissed by
the High Court. On an intra-court appeal preferred, the High Court
dismissed the same.
12. Be it stated, after the acquittal, the appellant had filed writ
petition no. 4368 of 2004 contending, inter alia, that he was taken to the
police station and was kept there in custody in the night handcuffed by the
police without there being any valid reason and his photographs in
handcuffs in daily newspapers were published as a consequence of which his
elder sister who loved him like a son, died due to shock. It was also
contended that the prosecution knew from the beginning that the cases
registered against him were false and it purposefully caused delay in
conclusion of the trial causing great harm to his dignity and reputation
and violating his fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution. A learned Single Judge of the High Court
had admitted the writ petition on the limited question of grant of
compensation to the appellant for the delay in conclusion of the criminal
case against him. Another Single Judge who finally heard the matter opined
that there was no case for compensation. In intra-court appeal, the
Division Bench reversed the same and granted compensation of Rs.70,000/-
which was enhanced by this Court to Rs.2 lakhs. The analysis made by the
Division Bench which has been approved by this Court is to the following
effect:-
‘The Division Bench further held that there was no warrant for putting the
appellant under handcuffs. His handcuffing was without justification and it
had not only adversely affected his dignity as a human being but had also
led to unfortunate and tragic consequences.”
And while enhancing the compensation, the Court held that:-
“..... we find that in the light of the findings arrived at by the Division
Bench, the compensation of Rs 70,000 was too small and did not do justice
to the sufferings and humiliation undergone by the appellant.”
13. Regard being had to the aforesaid enunciation of law, the factual
matrix of the case at hand is required to be appreciated. On a close
scrutiny of the judgment of the learned trial Judge, it is evident that he
has been guided basically by three factors, namely, that the State
Government has not established Forensic Science Laboratories despite the
orders passed by this Court; that there has been delay in getting the
seized articles tested; and that the seizing officer had not himself
verified by using his experience and expertise that the contraband article
was opium. As far as the first aspect is concerned, it is a different
matter altogether. As far as the delay is concerned that is the fulcrum
of the reasoning for acquittal. It is apt to note that the police while
patrolling had noticed the accused persons and their behaviour at that time
was suspicious. There is nothing on record to suggest that there was any
lapse on the part of the seizing officer. Nothing has been brought by way
of evidence to show that the prosecution had falsely implicated them.
There is nothing to remotely suggest that there was any malice. The High
Court, as is noticed, has not applied its mind to the concept of grant of
compensation to the accused persons in a case of present nature. There is
no material whatsoever to show that the prosecution has deliberately roped
in the accused persons. There is no malafide or malice like the fact
situation which are projected in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra). Thus,
the view expressed by the learned trial Judge is absolutely indefensible
and the affirmance thereof by the High Court is wholly unsustainable.
14. In view of the foregoing analysis, the appeal is allowed and the
order of the trial Judge granting compensation and that of the High Court
giving stamp of approval to the same are set aside.
...............................J.
[Dipak Misra]
...............................J.
[Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi
August 25, 2015.
-----------------------
[1]
(1996) 11 SCC 711
[2] (1998) 5 SCC 419
[3] (2004) 5 SCC 729
[4] (2012) 1 SCC 748
-----------------------
13
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1085 OF 2015
(@ SLP(Crl) No. 2623 of 2015)
State of Rajasthan ... Appellant
Versus
Jainudeen Shekh and Anr. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
The pivotal issue that emanates for consideration in this appeal, by
special leave, is whether the learned Special Judge was justified in
granting compensation of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to each of the
respondents who had been arraigned as accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 8/21(B) and 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, “the NDPS Act”) on the foundation that
there was delay in obtaining the report from the Forensic Science
Laboratory and further the test showed that the seized items did not
contain any contraband article and, therefore, they had suffered illegal
custody, and whether the High Court has correctly appreciated the fact
situation to affirm the view expressed by the learned trial Judge by
opining that the grant of compensation is not erroneous.
2. The facts which are necessary to be stated for adjudication of the
limited issue are that on 02.11.2011, PW-5 Nemichand, SHO, PS Bhimganj
along with PW4, Umrao, Constable and PW6, Om Prakash, Head Constable while
carrying on patrolling duty, noticed the two accused persons together and
seeing the police vehicle, accused Jainuddin speedily moved towards the
kachcha passage near Mangal Pandey circle and on a query being made, he
could not give any satisfactory reply. The accused was searched in
presence of other persons and during the search a polythene bag allegedly
containing intoxicant material was found in the back pocket pant of the
accused-respondent no.1 but he had no licence for it. The polythene bag
weighed 31 gram 170 milligrams. The police prepared two samples of alleged
smack weighing 5 grams each and the remaining was kept in the polythene bag
and sealed. Thereafter the accused-respondent no. 1 was arrested at the
spot and seizure memo was prepared. At that time accused Shabbir was also
taken into custody. Thereafter, an FIR was registered and after
investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 8/21(B) of the NDPS Act
against the accused-respondent no.1 and under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act
against the accused Shabbir.
3. The accused persons denied the charges and stated in their statement
under Section 313 CrPC that they had been falsely implicated.
4. The prosecution in order to establish the charges, examined six
witnesses. Be it noted, the sample that was sent for examination to the
Forensic Science Laboratory on 8.11.2011, chemical analysis thereof was
done on 9.9.2013 and the report was submitted to the court on 28.9.2013 and
it was exhibited as Exhibit P-11. The said document revealed that the
sample contained “caffeine” and “paracetamol” and it did not contain
Diacetylmorphine (heroine) or alkaloid of “Afeem” (Opium). As the report
indicated that the said items were not covered under the category of
intoxicant under NDPS Act, the trial court came to the conclusion that the
charges were not established in any manner.
5. Learned trial Judge, while recording the said conclusion observed
thus:
“In the present case certainly it is the matter of concern that the officer
executing the seizure has no experience with respect to intoxicant
material. Although PW5, Nemi Chand, had found the material as intoxicant
in his testimony merely by checking. Certainly it shows ignorance of the
officer about identification of intoxicant who executed seizure. No
attempt was made by the officer making seizure that he should have either
tasted the material, which was seized, or same should have been provided to
other persons, who were present at the time of seizure, to ensure whether
such material is intoxicant or not. The officer making seizure identified
same as smack merely after smelling the material.
In this perspective it shall be in the interest of justice to mention that
in case there being suspicion over the material being intoxicant or not,
then it is the responsibility of the State Government that immediately such
material should be subjected to chemical analysis, but in the present case
the aforesaid report of Forensic Science Laboratory was submitted into the
court on 28.09.2013 and the chemical analysis was done by the laboratory on
09.09.2013. So it is clear that aforesaid material was subjected to
chemical analysis about 2 years after the occurrence on 02.11.2011 that is
after the period of two years, so certainly it cannot be held as just and
proper procedure.”
6. After so holding, the learned trial Judge opined that despite the
Supreme Court giving the guidelines in Criminal Appeal No. 1640 of 2010 to
the State Governments and Central Government that every State should have
forensic science laboratory at the level of the State as well as the
Division, no appropriate action had been taken by the State Government.
The learned trial Judge also opined that the State Government had not been
able to discharge the responsibility and there should have been an
arrangement to obtain the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory
within a reasonable time. Being of this view, he recorded a judgment of
acquittal in favour of the accused. Thereafter the learned trial Judge
referred to Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
‘the Code’) and opined that a Court of Session can award compensation to
the accused in a case of malicious prosecution and accordingly directed
payment of Rs.1,50,000/- each to both the accused persons.
7. We have heard Mr. S.S. Shamshery, learned AAG for the State of
Rajasthan. Despite notice, there has been no appearance on behalf of the
respondents.
8. Section 250 of the Code confers powers on the Magistrate to grant
compensation on certain conditions being satisfied. A procedure has been
engrafted in the said provision. There are certain cases in which the
learned Sessions Judge can grant compensation. In this context we may
refer with profit to the decision in Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana[1].
The appellant therein was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6(1) of the
Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (for short,
‘TADA’). The defence taken by the accused was that he had been falsely
implicated at the instance of one Hans Raj Lambardar of the village. He
had examined four witnesses in his defence. He was acquitted under Section
6 of the TADA but convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Court
analyzing the evidence on record and taking note of the plea of the
defence, dislodged the judgment of conviction and while doing so, this
Court opined that:-
“....It is unfortunate that the police officers, namely, Head Constable,
Randhir PW 2 and the then Head Constable Jai Dayal, PW 3 foisted a false
case on the appellant for reasons best known to them, which is a very
serious matter. We are informed that the appellant was in custody for a few
days in connection with this case. We, therefore, direct the respondent-
State to pay a sum of Rs. 5000 as compensation to the appellant within two
months. The respondent-State may however recover the said amount from the
police officials, Randhir PW 2 and Jai Dayal, PW 3 (Rs. 2500 each), who are
responsible for false implication of the appellant.”
9. In Mohd. Zahid v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi[2], the appellant had
preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the TADA. The designated court had
found him guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 5 of TADA
and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay
a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two months more. The Court allowed the appeal
and recorded an order of acquittal. In course of analysis, the Court has
opined that certain documents had been interpolated, the evidence of
certain witnesses was absolutely false and that the appellant therein made
a victim of prolonged illegal incarceration due to machination of PWs 5 and
6 and other police personnel and accordingly directed payment of Rs.50,000/-
as compensation.
10. In this context reference to certain other decisions would be
appropriate. In State, represented by Inspector of Police and others v.
N.M.T. Joy Immaculate[3], a three-Judge Bench was dealing with the judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in
a Criminal Revision which was allowed and revision was disposed of with
certain directions. The High Court had granted Rs.1 lakh compensation on
the basis of an affidavit. G.P. Mathur, J., speaking for the learned Chief
Justice and himself, after quashing the order of the High Court has opined
that:-
“The High Court has also awarded Rs. 1 lakh as compensation to the accused
on the ground that she was illegally detained in the police station and the
police personnel committed acts of molestation, obscene violation, etc. It
is noteworthy that after investigation, the police has submitted charge-
sheet against accused Joy Immaculate. Her application for bail was rejected
by the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter by the High Court on 18-1-2002
prior to the decision of the revision. There is absolutely no justification
for awarding compensation to a person who is facing prosecution for a
serious offence like murder even before the trial has commenced. This
direction, therefore, deserves to be set aside.”
Dr. A.R. Lakshmann, J. in his concurring opinion has laid down:-
“Above all, the learned Judge has committed a grave error in awarding a
compensation of Rs 1 lakh on the ground that the police personnel committed
acts of obscene violation, teasing the respondent herein. The learned Judge
has relied upon only on the basis of the affidavit filed in the case for
coming to the conclusion and also on the basis of the assumption that the
respondent was not involved in the incident which will foreclose the
further enquiry ordered by the learned Judge in the matter. There is no
justification for awarding compensation to a person who is facing
prosecution for a serious offence like murder even before the trial has
started.”
11. In this context, we may usefully refer to a two-Judge Bench decision
in Hardeep Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh[4]. In the said case, the
appellant was engaged in running a coaching centre where students were
given tuition to prepare them for entrance tests for different professional
courses. The appellant was arrested and a case under Section 420 read with
Section 34 IPC and other sections was instituted. He was brought to the
police station in handcuffs and his photographs in handcuffs appeared in
the local newspapers. The trial went on for several years and eventually,
he was acquitted after 12 years. Thereafter he filed a complaint before
the Magistrate which was dismissed for lack of sanction. The High Court
being moved had held that complaint was not maintainable and dismissed the
same in limini. Thereafter, the victim moved the Government for grant of
sanction under Section 197 CrPC for prosecuting the Collector and other
government servants which was refused. The said order of refusal came to
be assailed in W.P. No.4777 of 2007. The writ petition was dismissed by
the High Court. On an intra-court appeal preferred, the High Court
dismissed the same.
12. Be it stated, after the acquittal, the appellant had filed writ
petition no. 4368 of 2004 contending, inter alia, that he was taken to the
police station and was kept there in custody in the night handcuffed by the
police without there being any valid reason and his photographs in
handcuffs in daily newspapers were published as a consequence of which his
elder sister who loved him like a son, died due to shock. It was also
contended that the prosecution knew from the beginning that the cases
registered against him were false and it purposefully caused delay in
conclusion of the trial causing great harm to his dignity and reputation
and violating his fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution. A learned Single Judge of the High Court
had admitted the writ petition on the limited question of grant of
compensation to the appellant for the delay in conclusion of the criminal
case against him. Another Single Judge who finally heard the matter opined
that there was no case for compensation. In intra-court appeal, the
Division Bench reversed the same and granted compensation of Rs.70,000/-
which was enhanced by this Court to Rs.2 lakhs. The analysis made by the
Division Bench which has been approved by this Court is to the following
effect:-
‘The Division Bench further held that there was no warrant for putting the
appellant under handcuffs. His handcuffing was without justification and it
had not only adversely affected his dignity as a human being but had also
led to unfortunate and tragic consequences.”
And while enhancing the compensation, the Court held that:-
“..... we find that in the light of the findings arrived at by the Division
Bench, the compensation of Rs 70,000 was too small and did not do justice
to the sufferings and humiliation undergone by the appellant.”
13. Regard being had to the aforesaid enunciation of law, the factual
matrix of the case at hand is required to be appreciated. On a close
scrutiny of the judgment of the learned trial Judge, it is evident that he
has been guided basically by three factors, namely, that the State
Government has not established Forensic Science Laboratories despite the
orders passed by this Court; that there has been delay in getting the
seized articles tested; and that the seizing officer had not himself
verified by using his experience and expertise that the contraband article
was opium. As far as the first aspect is concerned, it is a different
matter altogether. As far as the delay is concerned that is the fulcrum
of the reasoning for acquittal. It is apt to note that the police while
patrolling had noticed the accused persons and their behaviour at that time
was suspicious. There is nothing on record to suggest that there was any
lapse on the part of the seizing officer. Nothing has been brought by way
of evidence to show that the prosecution had falsely implicated them.
There is nothing to remotely suggest that there was any malice. The High
Court, as is noticed, has not applied its mind to the concept of grant of
compensation to the accused persons in a case of present nature. There is
no material whatsoever to show that the prosecution has deliberately roped
in the accused persons. There is no malafide or malice like the fact
situation which are projected in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra). Thus,
the view expressed by the learned trial Judge is absolutely indefensible
and the affirmance thereof by the High Court is wholly unsustainable.
14. In view of the foregoing analysis, the appeal is allowed and the
order of the trial Judge granting compensation and that of the High Court
giving stamp of approval to the same are set aside.
...............................J.
[Dipak Misra]
...............................J.
[Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi
August 25, 2015.
-----------------------
[1]
(1996) 11 SCC 711
[2] (1998) 5 SCC 419
[3] (2004) 5 SCC 729
[4] (2012) 1 SCC 748
-----------------------
13
