शब्द प्रति मिनट
206
Darsh_KEWAT
00:00
गति
The discovery of the facts must relate to the commission of such offence. Thus, in view of the above statutory realm as well as the true purport of the Apex Court in the context of peculiar facts in the case is apt. Hence, this Court is formulating its view by centrally relying upon the above reasoning. Hence, in the light of statutory provisions as well as powers of Investigating Agency and also considering its object and intendment, Hon'ble Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Chidambaram referred supra, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court vividly held that the statutory power and functions of the Judicial intervention should not impede the investigation being conducted by the Investigation Agency, unless there are exceptional circumstances and the same was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar stated supra, and Central Bureau of Investigation stated supra. More particularly, doctrine of confirmation of subsequent events, is part and parcel of the investigation to unfold the real truth. Yet another significant facet in the lis is that on one hand, the prosecution alleges that respondent-accused while discharging his official duties as police officer, purposefully made efforts to dislodge and manipulate the CCTV Footage to cover his ill-acts. the Respondent-the then Police Inspector is seeking the aid of the very same device mechanism, during the course of interrogation. Self-contradictory stand of respondent appears to be approbate and reprobate, but does not mean that his plea cannot be declined in the light of statutory mandates. Considering the Constitutional mandates which were vividly explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in series of its remarkable Judgments, this Court being the Constitutional Court, which is guardian to protect the rights of accused as well as the statutory powers of Investigating Agency in it's true letter and spirt and also by striking the balance between the above two facets, is inclined to dispose of the Criminal Petition by modifying the Order of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada to the following extent: The period of police custody shall commence from The Investigation Officer of Special Investigation the Respondent/Accused offences for recovery of material evidence, reconstruction offence and for such other purposes, accordance with the law, in the event of facts revealed by the respondent-accused; The facts of the case are that the applicant no. 1 was married to one Shesh Nath Pandey who was working as Technician Grade-I under the respondents and who retired from service on Applicants no. 2 and 3 are the children of applicant no. 1 from Shesh Nath Pandey. Applicant no. 1 represented for grant of family pension which was rejected by the respondents vide the impugned order the ground that the deceased employee had filed an affidavit stating that he had excluded his wife and children from his movable and immovable property, that his divorce was granted by the Family Court, and that the deceased employee had submitted an application dated stating that he did not want to nominate any family member for family pension. Aggrieved, the applicants have preferred this OA. The applicants contend that the divorce decree passed by ADJ, Family Court, Lucknow is ex parte and that their right to property cannot be taken away without due process of law. It is further contended that pension or family pension is not a bounty and that the Family Pension Rules, 1964 create a right in favour of the applicants. Finally, it is contended that the applicants are the only surviving legal heirs and successors of late Shesh Nath Pandey under the On the other hand, the respondents state that the deceased railway employee had submitted an affidavit the effect that he had ousted the applicants from his entire movable and immovable property. It is further stated that the deceased employee had filed Case before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow for divorce under the Hindu Marriage which came to be allowed ex parte vide judgment and order stated that the deceased employee had submitted an application on the respondents stating that he does not want to include any name in the pension papers for grant of family pension and accordingly, on his retirement, Pension Payment Order was issued in his favour which did not include any family member. Finally, it is contended that the applicants are not entitled to family pension in view of the aforementioned considerations. the deceased railway employee till they attain the age of 25 years, or they get married, or start earning their livelihood,