Full Text
Translation output
€t^ q
$-14
* .IN THE HIGII CQUNT OF DELIII AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C . 748/2011 & Crt.M .A. 2862/201 1 (stay)
KIRANMAHAJAN
Through
$-14
* .IN THE HIGII CQUNT OF DELIII AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C . 748/2011 & Crt.M .A. 2862/201 1 (stay)
KIRANMAHAJAN
Through
VERSUS
STATE
Through ..... Petitioner
VIr. V. Srivastava, Adv. ..... Respondent
VIr. Mukesh Gupta, App for State with SI Rajeshwar, pS Conn. place.
Through ..... Petitioner
VIr. V. Srivastava, Adv. ..... Respondent
VIr. Mukesh Gupta, App for State with SI Rajeshwar, pS Conn. place.
CORAM:
. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA o ORIDER
30.09.2011
Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that he is aggrieved by the part of the order dated zgth September, 2010 whereby the statements recorded under Section 161 cr.p.c. of Rajpal, Ashutosh Kumar, D.K.
Mishra and Security Guards have not been supplied to him. Learned counsel further states that merely on the statement of the Investigating Officer the
Trial Court could not have come to the conclusion that no statements were recorded and it has passed the order without looking into the case diaries.
The order dated 2gth September, 2or0 is amply clear in so far as it records the statement of the Investigating officer that these persons were not examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and their statements were not recorded.
CRL.M.C. 748/2011 page I of 2
*
2011:DHC:10046 rt 1
-t_.
Be that as it may, it is for the Trial Court to conduct the trial in the manner it thinks fit. Besides assuring a fair trial to the accused it has also to ensure that no dilatory tactics are adopted by any of the parties. It is not necessary that the Trial Court should cross check and veri$r the statement of the Investigating Officer every time by looking into the case diaries. The
Petitioner has placed no material on record to show that prima facie the statement of the Investigating Officer is incorrect. Since it is stated on behalf of the State, the statements were not recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C., they were not required to be supplied. In the absence of the statements of the witnesses having not been recorded no such statements can be provided to the Petitioner. I find no abuse of the process of the Court, warranting interference by this Court.
Petition and application are dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 30, 201-1
'ga'
CRL.M.C. 748/2011 lu,^$,fa"ffi
YMUKTA GUPTA,J page 2 of2
2011:DHC:10046
30.09.2011
Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that he is aggrieved by the part of the order dated zgth September, 2010 whereby the statements recorded under Section 161 cr.p.c. of Rajpal, Ashutosh Kumar, D.K.
Mishra and Security Guards have not been supplied to him. Learned counsel further states that merely on the statement of the Investigating Officer the
Trial Court could not have come to the conclusion that no statements were recorded and it has passed the order without looking into the case diaries.
The order dated 2gth September, 2or0 is amply clear in so far as it records the statement of the Investigating officer that these persons were not examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and their statements were not recorded.
CRL.M.C. 748/2011 page I of 2
*
2011:DHC:10046 rt 1
-t_.
Be that as it may, it is for the Trial Court to conduct the trial in the manner it thinks fit. Besides assuring a fair trial to the accused it has also to ensure that no dilatory tactics are adopted by any of the parties. It is not necessary that the Trial Court should cross check and veri$r the statement of the Investigating Officer every time by looking into the case diaries. The
Petitioner has placed no material on record to show that prima facie the statement of the Investigating Officer is incorrect. Since it is stated on behalf of the State, the statements were not recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C., they were not required to be supplied. In the absence of the statements of the witnesses having not been recorded no such statements can be provided to the Petitioner. I find no abuse of the process of the Court, warranting interference by this Court.
Petition and application are dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 30, 201-1
'ga'
CRL.M.C. 748/2011 lu,^$,fa"ffi
YMUKTA GUPTA,J page 2 of2
2011:DHC:10046
JUDGMENT