Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 963 (MP)

Dinesh Chandra Gupta v. State of M. P.

2015-09-11

JARAT KUMAR JAIN

body2015
ORDER 1. This revision is filed under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short “the Code”] against the order passed by ASJ, Rajgarh (Biaora) in S.T.No.91/2014 on 23.5.2014. 2. Final report has been filed against the applicant for the offences under sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. At the time of framing of charge, applicant filed an application that cash books; money receipt books and remittance registers are not produced along with the final report and copies of the same have not been supplied to him. Learned ASJ by the impugned order rejected the application. Being aggrieved, applicant has filed this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the FIR it is mentioned that the original cash books for the year 2007-08; 2008; 2008-10 and 2008-10 and remittance registers and money receipt books are seized and they are part of the final report but these documents are not produced before the Court and copies of these documents are not supplied to the applicant. The applicant has filed an application with the prayer that the copies of these documents be made available to him. Learned ASJ by the impugned order dismissed the application on the ground that as per order dated 18.2.2014 Magistrate has supplied the copies of these documents. Thereafter applicant filed an application for obtaining the certified copies of these documents, then his application has been rejected on the ground that these documents are not available with the Court’s file. In support applicant has filed the certified copy of the application in which the report of copying section is mentioned. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that at the direction of this Court, Station House Officer, Police Station Rajgarh (Biaora) has filed the affidavit. In the affidavit it is stated that all the original documents were sent to Director, Handwriting Expert, Police Headquarters, Bhopal and at the time of filing of final report, copies of all the documents were supplied to the applicant but in the letter of Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh (Biaora) addressed to Director, Handwriting Expert, Police Headquarters, Bhopal there is a list of 32 documents which were sent for opinion of handwriting expert. In that list original cask books; money receipt books and remittance registers are not included. In that list original cask books; money receipt books and remittance registers are not included. Thus, it is not correct that these original documents were sent for examination by handwriting expert. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that these documents are material and part of the final report, therefore, as per the provisions of section 207 of the Code the applicant is entitled to get the copies of these documents. In the impugned order as well as in the affidavit filed before this Court, there is no specific averments that the copies of these documents are supplied to the applicant. Therefore, the order be set aside and trial Court may be directed to supply the copies of these documents to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the non-applicant/State supports the order. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. 7. From the final report, it reveals that Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Rajgarh (Biaora) has sent a letter dated 24.10.2013 to Station House Officer, Police Station Rajgarh (Biaora) with the request to register a FIR against the applicant. In the letter it is mentioned that along with the letter four original cash books; two remittance registers and nine money receipt books were enclosed. The applicant has filed the application for the copies of these documents. Learned ASJ in the impugned order has not specifically mentioned that copies of these documents were supplied to the applicant by the committal Magistrate. Shri J. L. Sundare, Station House Officer, Police Station Rajgarh (Biaora) has filed the affidavit before this Court stating that at the time of filing of final report, all the copies of the documents were supplied to the applicant. It is not specifically mentioned that the copies of cash books; remittance registers and money receipt books were supplied to the applicant. 8. In such circumstances the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to decide the application dated 19.4.2014 filed by the applicant afresh and pass the speaking order. 9. Thus, the revision is disposed of as aforesaid.