Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 936 (MP)

Vijay Kumar Jain v. State of M. P.

2018-11-01

ANJULI PALO, S.K.SETH

body2018
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the applicant to assail the validity of the order dated 23.8.2018 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bhopal In Special Case No. 4/2003. By the order impugned, learned Special Judge has rejected the application preferred by the applicant on 16.8.2018. 3. Facts in brief for the disposal of the present petition are as under: Applicant is facing a criminal trial for offences punishable under section 13 (1)(e) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bhopal. During course of trial, one B. M. Soni (PW-51), Technical Assistant, was examined to prove the technical report prepared with regard to the valuation of the immovable properties acquired by the applicant at Indore, Bhopal and Jabalpur. Shri B. M. Soni died before he could be cross- examined, therefore, to preempt the prosecution by proving the report prepared by Shri Soni by another witness, applicant filed an application dated 16.8.2018. The application is opposed by the prosecution and after hearing rival submissions, the application preferred by the applicant was dismissed by the trial Court by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 4. We have heard Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate for the applicant at length. 5. Shri Khare has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of H. P. v Jai Lal and others, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 280 to show what is the nature of the expert evidence. 6. After having heard learned senior counsel at length and considering the material placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that reliance placed on the said decision of the Supreme Court is of no avail to the applicant in the facts of the present case. The applicant cannot pre-empt from proving a relevant fact if it is permissible under the law. 7. Thus, considering all the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant, we find no error or illegality with the order impugned. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit and substance in the present petition filed under section 482 of the CrPC. 9. Accordingly, MCrC stands dismissed and closed.