Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aavid Kha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 August, 2023
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGHCOURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 9th OF AUGUST, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1303 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. AAVID KHAN S/O SHRI KHALIL KHAN, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TEMPOO DRIVER
RESIDENT OF IDGAHA MORAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. CHOTU SHRIVAS S/O SHRI RAJENDRA SHRIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOPKEEPER
RESIDENT OF NEW COLONY GOSIPURAR MORAR
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH) .
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR AHIRWAR - ADVOCATE
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
TH
ES
POLICE STATION THROUGH POLICE STATION GOLE
KA MANDIR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI R.S. YADAV - LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
This application coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed assailing the order dated 18/01/2023 in Special Session Trial No.94/2017 passed by learned Special Judge, 2 MPDVPK Act, Gwalior whereby the application for calling the Rojnamcha Sanha dated 12/06/2017 and 20/07/2017 was rejected.
The petition inter-alia submits that applicants - Aavid Khan and Chhotu Shrivas are facing trial for an offence punishable under section 392 of the IPC and Section 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act. During cross examination of Investigation Officer, it was found that applicant Aavid Khan was brought to the police station between 12.00 to 1.00 in the noon but he was arrested at 18.28. In this regard, the Investigation Officer was cross examined as to where applicant was kept in between. The Investigation Officer replied that SHO would answer this query, therefore, petitioners/accused persons requested the learned Trial Court to call the Rojnamcha Sanha dated 12/06/2017 and dated 20/07/2017. The learned Trial Court rejected the request. The impugned order assailed on the ground that Rojnamcha Sanha is necessary for defence of the accused to reveal why arrest was made after six hours of his production in the police station. Therefore, the impugned order be set-aside and requested Rojnamcha Sanha be directed to be produced before the Trial Court.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety, therefore the revision petition being devoid of merit deserves to be rejected.
Heard both the parties and perused the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Rojnamcha Sanha is necessary for defence of the accused, as it may reveal why the arrest was made after six hours of production of accused in the police station. But, no explanation is given by learned counsel as to why and how delay in arrest of accused is material for his defence. It is not case of the accused that during 3 interregnum period any proceedings against accused was taken. No patent illegality or perversity is found in impugned order. Further, the impugned order is apparently an interlocutory order, therefore, it is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this Court. No interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is called for.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE Prachi PRACHI MISHRA 2023.08.10 09:47:17 +05'30'