High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/10599/2019allowed

Rajdeep Singh Mehrok v. State Of Punjab

2024-08-079 pages

#$% &'& ( #$#)$* "

#$% '&+& ( ,-"

/0$12 2 #3 &&& 4040#$

) /4,4

#6 )$-,7 ,$"

,$#42

&&& .#$"

$4 %

89 & /

"""""""

& #

$%!

& & #'() * +& & ,- .

!4 3# !3#'

% & 5 6 * +6&6 ,- )7$8 73'

& #%43 * + &,- /

0 / !

: ;

& <

& /

3) 3) !3#!

! > ## ; / > ;

/ > > 6 $ 7 4 !3#!

5 ?

> .

; 2

& > ; 0;

;

& ;

. >

!4 34!3#% & &

2 & / >

/ ) @ inter alia,

3) 3( !3#%

; /

1 /

prima facia

; / .

6&6

#$ ## !3#!

= % 6&6

/ > > ; )7$8 &

& & > * - !3#)

3) 3! !3#) / 73'

& & > * - !3#) 5 73'

& 3# ; 73'

& /

$4% & & / < ;

< <

;

3) 3( !3#%

; &

!3%B!3#%

$ Per contra,

/ 6 #() & &

/ ;

/ /

> & /

/ . ;/

;

= /

;

@; / > ; >

suomoto

/ &8 : ?

/ &

/ & ?

/ &

!"# $% & '

"( ) *+, -

./ . !/, - '0) ) 1".//2 3 ; ?

& &

2 & / /

C; !3#%

;

/ /

;

> & >

/ ;

;

5 ;

> 5

;

& > ;

2 . ?

/ ?, 5 &

+-#4) +*#

.3)3 > > C/ : .

/ ? 2

> "12. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained..."

> !3*#- & expost facto > 5 > 0;

!3 &

/ ; & : ?, &

54-

!3*#- & > "The right under first part of subarticle (1) to Article 20 of the Constitution is a very valuable right, which must be safeguarded and protected by the courts as it is a constitutional mandate. The Constitution bench of this Court in )-(5-# ) -( ) -'"

3.)

, highlighted the principle underlying the prohibition by relying upon judgment of 6 7 "-(8'

!/295 .3 . and of the United States Supreme Court in (5# 82:! 2:

;3<)3,3!2

!, to hold that it would be highly unjust, unfair and in violation of human rights to punish a person under the ex post facto law for acts or omissions that were not an offence when committed. In the English system of jurisprudence, in the absence of a written Constitution, the repugnance of such laws is justified on universal notions of fairness and justice, not on the ground of invalidating the law itself, but as compelling the beneficial construction thereof where the language of the statute by any means permits it. Under the American law, ex post facto laws are rendered invalid by virtue of Article 1, Sections 9 and 10." (emphasis supplied) (

; !3#!

> *supra-

> % 6&6 ; 6&6 >

0 D

& / &

#''!

#$ ## !3#!

6&6 /

/ % .

5 !3*#- & 2; % 6&6

; )7$8 & >

& > * - !3#) /

3) 3! !3#)

0 ( 73'

& @> *- !3#) /

3) 3! !3#) 5

> ;

5 ; > > $4% & & / < / < ; 73'

& > 3# ;

$4%*!-*- & & / < ; & : ?,

) - = # ># , ?

- ./ : : / / ;

$4% & &

> / . / <

3) 3( !3#%

; /

$ 7 4 !3#!

2; & > / <

; %

& > 5

$() & &

& suo moto,

;

5 / <

;

= & ;

& ;

> ,

!4 3# !3#'

% 6&6 )7$8 73'

0 / ;

0 0 #3 *-

;

3( 3% !3!$ vishnu A .

/B FB A