Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gangaram vs Vishesh Police Sthapana Lokayukt ... on 4 October, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 4 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1111 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
GANGARAM S/O LATE NATHULALJI, AGED ABOUT 55
YEAR S, GRAM BAMORA, POST AAKASODA, TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI JAI SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. VISHESH POLICE STHAPANA LOKAYUKT UJJAIN
LOKAYUKT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRAMUKH SACHIV REVENUE DEPARTMENT
BHOPAL THROUGH STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. DEPALI JADHAV W/O RANJEET KARNAL P-5
KALANDI PARK SHRINAGAR EXT. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. RANJEET KARNAL S/O NANDKISHORE P-5
KALANDI PARK SHRINAGAR EXT. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1.
SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA - P.L FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2/STATE.
SHRI PEYUSH JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS.3&4)
Th is revision coming on for orders this day, Justice Vijay Kumar
Shukla passed the following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 05-10-2023
10:22:49
The present Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of
Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 24/12/2021 passed by Special
Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Ujjain whereby the application submitted
by the respondent No.1/prosecution for permission to produce certain
documents which were not part of the charge-sheet has been rejected.
2. The facts of the case are that one Nathulal has made a complaint to
Special Police Establishment, Ujjain alleging that in the year 2012, the
respondent No.3 the then Nayab Tehsildar has auctioned the property of the
complainant being a defaulter in not paying the loan to the Punjab National
Bank, Branch Kanthal, Ujjain. It is alleged that the respondent No.3 auctioned
the property and the same has been finalized to the highest bidder Prem Kumar
Dangi and has been transferred to his name. It is further alleged that the auction
purchaser is the Driver of the respondent No.4 who is husband of respondent
No.3 and witness in the deed. Thus, they all were colluded and the respondent
No.3 has misused her office. The respondent No.1 has registered a case for
commission of offences under Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of P.C
Act and Section 120-B of IPC. One of the co-accused persons Prem Kumar
Dangi has been declared absconded. During the pendency of prosecution, the
complainant Nathulal died and the prosecution cited the present applicant
Gangaram as one of the prosecution witnesses. The respondent
No.1/prosecution filed an application before the Court for production of two
documents i.e electoral roll of the accused Prem Kumar Dangi and Ranjit
Karnal/respondent No.4 to prove that they were residing on same address and
the affidavit of complainant Nathulal. By the impugned order the trial Court
rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that the prosecution has failed
Signature Not Verified
to ascribe any reason for not filing the aforesaid documents alongwith the
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 05-10-2023
10:22:49
charge-sheet.
3. Counsel for the parties submit that the case is still at the prosecution
evidence stage.
4. Counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that he is supporting the
present Revision petition filed by the petitioner.
5. Counsel for the respondent Nos.3&4 raises preliminary objection that
the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present Revision Petition as he is
neither complainant nor the prosecuting agency. He further submits that the
aforesaid documents which are sought to be produced by the prosecution are
false and fabricated documents.
6. To appreciate the aforesaid submissions it is apposite to refer the
provisions of Section 91 of Cr.P.C. which are reproduced as under:-
Section 91 - Summons to produce document or other
thing.
(1)Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police
station considers that the production of any document or
other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any
investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this
Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may
issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the
person in whose possession or power such document or
thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it,
or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons
or order.
(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce
a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied
with the requisition, if he causes such document or thing to be
produced instead of attending personally to produce the
same.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed--
(a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act,
(1 of 1872), or the Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 05-10-2023
10:22:49
1891), or
(b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document
or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph
authority.
7. The present Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 & 401 of
Cr.P.C. Both the Sections confer wide power to this Court to examine the
validity of an order passed by the sub-ordinate Court. On going through the
order-sheet, we find that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the nature of
the documents which were sought to be produced by the prosecution to
establish nexus between the accused persons and also that the respondent No.4
and his driver Prem kumar Dangi (in whose favour property was auctioned)
were residing on the same address. The Trial Court has failed to consider the
aforesaid documents with reference to the nature of the complaint and
allegations. In the case Nitya Dharmananda vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy
reported in 2018 (2) SCC 93 the Supreme Court has held that the Trial Court
has powers to summon the documents which are not part of the charge-sheet if
they are relevant for the prosecution case.
8. Counsel for the respondent Nos.3&4 has raised objection regarding
the locus but has failed to show any provision of law or judgment of any Court
which says that the Revision is not maintainable at the instance of the son of the
complainant who died during the pendency of trial. Apart from that, the
respondent No.1 who is prosecuting agency has submitted that he is also
supporting the application and according to him the respondent No.1 filed
application seeking production of these documents but the Court has
erroneously rejected the same.
9. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the order passed by the Trial
Court is patently illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. The aforesaid
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 05-10-2023
10:22:49
documents which are sought to be produced by the prosecution have been
found to be relevant for the prosecution case.
10. Accordingly, the present Revision Petition stands allowed. The
impugned order is set aside.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Pramod
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 05-10-2023
10:22:49
