Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Moti Lal Modhu vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 March, 2021
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 402/2021
Moti Lal Modhu S/o Sh. Sahab Ram, Aged About 20 Years, Chak
11 C.d.r. Rohi Naiwala, Police Thana Tibbi, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.). (At Present Lodged In District Jail Hanumangarh).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Sandhu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Farzand Ali, GA cum AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
30/03/2021
Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 05.01.2021
passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases,
Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 32/2019 (CIS No. 32/2019)
whereby, the learned trial court rejected the application filed by
the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of
investigation, statement of certain witnesses viz. Rajendra Kumar,
Sahab Ram, Smt. Savitri, Krishan, Hansraj, Sanchi Kumar, Angrej
Singh, Santokh Singh were recorded by the investigating officer,
the copy of which should be given to the petitioner. It is also
submitted that in the chargesheet, it has been mentioned that the
investigating officer took CDR of seizure officer, police party and
accused. It is argued that providing copy of the statements and
CDR of mobile is essential to prove innocence of the petitioner.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-402/2021]
Therefore, the trial Court has grossly erred in rejecting the
application filed by the petitioner without assigning any cogent
reason. He placed reliance of judgments in the case of Manju Devi
(Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan 2014 (3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.)1226, Jasveer
Vs. State of Rajasthan 2015 (1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 526)and Sheru @
Surajnath 2014 (1) R.Cr.D.435 (Raj.), S.B. CriminalMisc. Petition
No. 273/2020 (Swarn Singh @ Bab Vs. State) decided
on 18.02.2020.
Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General Shri Farzand Ali
opposed the prayer made by the petitioner, however, he does not
dispute that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.
273/2020 (Swarn Singh @ Bab Vs. State) decided on 18.02.2020.
Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and after going through
the impugned order and so also keeping in view the ratio of this
Court's judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in
the matters of Manju Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan 2014
(3)Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1226, Jasveer Vs. State of Rajasthan 2015
(1)Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 526) and Sheru @ Surajnath 2014 (1)
R.Cr.D.435(Raj.), S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 273/2020
(Swarn Singh @Bab Vs. State) decidedon 18.02.2020, I am of the
opinion that providing copy of statement of witnesses and CDR of
seizure authority imperative for fair trial and providing a just
opportunity of defence to the accused. Therefore, the trial court
was not justified in rejecting the application by the impugned
order. Accordingly, this misc. petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 05.01.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is
ordered that the trial court shall, forthwith provide the copy of
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-402/2021]
statement of witnesses and CDR of seizure authority referred to
in the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C to the petitioner.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
172-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
