Shankar Pundlikrao Douskar vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Mouda Nagpur ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 22 Bom

Judgment                                   1                    26.apl.742.2022 judg.odt




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

           CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.742 OF 2022

      Shankar Pundlikrao Douskar
      Aged : 50 Yrs., Occ.: Private Service,
      R/o. Plot No. 1409, Behind back
      gate of Priyadarshani College,
      C/o. Rahul Nakhate, Nandanwan,
      Nagpur                                                .... APPLICANT

                                  // VERSUS //


     1. State of Maharashtra,
      through P.S.O. Mouda,
      Dist. Nagpur

   2. Mrs Shrunkhala Kirtilal Kawale,
     Aged about 35 Yrs., Occ. Service,
     R/o. Sharda Chowk, Mouda,
     Taluka Mouda, Dist. Nagpur        .... NON-APPLICANTS
__________________________________________________________
      Shri K. Y. Mandpe, Adv. H/f. Mr Y. B. Mandpe, Advocate for the applicant
      Shri S. A. Ashirgade, APP for the State/non-applicant No.1
      Ms Neerja Choubey, Advocate (appnt) for the non-applicant No.2
__________________________________________________________

                     CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.

DATED : 2nd JANUARY, 2023

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1]           Heard.


2]           RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of learned Advocate for the parties.

 Judgment                              2                26.apl.742.2022 judg.odt




3]           The applicant, who is sole accused in Criminal Case No. 132

of 2018, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mouda, has

challenged the order dated 16.03.2021, whereby the learned Magistrate

was inclined to grant permission for production of some documents i.e.

Statements of 22 beneficiaries, the account holders of the Sanstha.

4] With the assistance of the learned Advocate for the applicant

and the learned APP I have gone through the record and proceedings. It

is to be noted that the application made by the learned APP, incharge of

the case and one Sau Payal Verma, before the learned Magistrate is as

vague as vagueness could be. Learned Magistrate also passed a vague

order by simply recording "Allowed". It is to be noted that in a case

instituted on a police report, all the documents or the statement of the

witnesses must be complied in the chargesheet. Perusal of the application

itself creates a doubt in the mind of the Court. Learned APP mentioned

in the application that the complainant/informant wanted to produce

some documents. It is not clear from this application whether the

documents sought to be produced were the statements of the 22

beneficiaries recorded during the course of investigation or their Bank

account statements. Learned Magistrate without ascertaining the correct

factual position allowed the application.

 Judgment                             3                 26.apl.742.2022 judg.odt




5]           In the reply, filed by the State in this application a self

contradictory stand has been taken. In para 4, it is stated by the APP

(Mr S. M. Ukey, APP) that the production of documents before the trial

Court was contrary to Section 173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 and as such, the order was bad in law.

6] In para No. 5 of the reply, the learned APP (Mr S. M. Ukey,

APP) tried to justify the order. It is to be noted that the vagueness has

been further aggravated before this Court by the prosecution.

7] It is to be noted that after filing the charge-sheet, the

investigating officer can conduct further investigation as provided under

Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The evidence

collected during further investigation can be placed on record by filing

the supplementary charge-sheet. The application made is vague on this

important point. Therefore, in my view the order cannot be sustained.

8] Accordingly, the application is allowed. The order dated

16.03.2021 is set aside.

                                 Judgment                              4                 26.apl.742.2022 judg.odt




                                9]          It is, however, made clear that this vagueness in the

application can be taken care of by making separate application if

permitted under the law. It is further made clear that if the documents

are collected by the investigating officer but remained to be produced

then in that case the investigating officer would be required to file a

supplementary charge-sheet. If the statements of the witnesses are

recorded and remained to be filed then in that event the Magistrate

would be required to see whether the names of those witnesses are

mentioned in the list of witnesses submitted with the chargesheet. If the

names of the witnesses are mentioned in the charge-sheet and statements

are remained to placed on record then the production of the same can be

allowed by following the procedure.

                                10]         Rule is made absolute in the above terms.



                                11]         The fees of Rs.5000/- be paid to learned appointed

Advocate for non-applicant No. 2, as remuneration.

( G. A. SANAP, J.) Namrata Signed By:NAMRATA YOGESH DHARKAR P. A.

High Court Nagpur Signing Date:03.01.2023 14:32