Delhi District Court
Surinder Pal vs The State on 9 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DASS,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03 & SPECIAL JUDGE
(COMPANIES ACT) : SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
CR No.33/2022
CNR No.DLSW01-000741-2022
Surinder Pal,
S/o Late Sh. Nirmal Singh,
R/o B-86, Gurudwara Road,
Gali No.5, Mahavir Enclave,
New Delhi-110045
.....Revisionist
Versus
The State,
through Ld. APP for State
.....Respondent
Date of Institution : 02.02.2022
Date on which arguments were heard : 09.03.2022
ORDER
ORAL
1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [in short 'CrPC'] is directed against the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by Sh. Paras Dalal, ld. MM-01, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Cr. Case No.427932/2016 titled as "State Vs. Surender Pal" in FIR No.226/2009 PS Dabri.
2. The relevant Trial Court Record is already attached with the revision petition.
3. Since the revision petition has been heard exhaustively, let CR. No.33/2022 Surinder Pal Vs. State Page 1 of 6 me now deal with the contentions raised directly. Before that, the impugned order is brief one and I am quoting the same hereunder:-
"6.11.2021 Present : Sh. Anurag Kumar, Ld. APP for the state.
Accused with counsel Sh. M. S. Sasan.
Present matter is fixed for arguments on application u/s 311 CrPC filed by the Ld. APP for summoning an officer from CBSE to exhibit and depose about the records which were allegedly forged by the accused. Ld. APP for the state submits that the said witness was already added as prosecution witness VOD 15.10.2015 and the application u/s 311 CrPC was filed on 29.06.2019.Per contra, Ld. Counsel fro the accused submits that the report of the CBSE as well as addition to prosecution witness was made without filing of any additional charge-sheet and therefore, the same ought not to have been taken on record.
Submissions heard. File
perused.
It is an admitted fact that
instead of filing a supplementary charge- sheet u/s 173(8)to place on record the report received from CBSE, the IO simply filed a report along with application. The said report was filed in 2015 duly forwarded by the APP for the State and same was even duly supplied to the accused side as recorded in CR. No.33/2022 Surinder Pal Vs. State Page 2 of 6 ordersheet dated 15.07.2015.
On perusal of the ordersheet, it is seen that the CBSE verification report was pending even at the stage of argument on charge and it was subsequent thereto that the same was taken on record and prosecution witness were added. Therefore, at this stage, to challenge the technicality that the report ought to have been filed along with supplementary charge-sheet,seems unjust. Section 311 CrPC provides ample scope to summon any new witness when his evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the case and in the present case, the accused side had been put to notice about the evidence as well as the witness way back in the year 2015.
The application to summon prosecution witness Mr. Chunni Lal (the then)Assistant Secretary, CBSE, Regional office, Delhi and Section Officer (M&M), Regional Office,Ajmer,Rajasthan is allowed.
Let they be summoned for 24.01.2022.
Date is given as per the convenience of accused side."
4. Ld. counsel for the revisionist has argued as under:-
(i) He submits that initially IO had informed the Court that he would be filing supplementary chargesheet as and when report/verification from CBSE is received. Infact, instead of so doing or adopting the rightful procedure prescribed which is filing of a supplementary charge-sheet CR. No.33/2022 Surinder Pal Vs. State Page 3 of 6 what he had done is that he had filed a report directly before the Court whereafter the Court had only taken note of the said aspect in terms of the order dated 15.10.2015.
(ii) Subsequently since again this issue was raked up before learned MM, the IO and not the ld. APP had moved an application under Section 311 CrPC which was allowed and the relevant witnesses were allowed to be summoned.
(iii) He submits that more glaring is the fact that in the document at page No.25 and 26 which had dates 08.07.2015 and 10.07.2015 of CBSE, Delhi and CBSE, Ajmer, they refer to some letter dated 06.07.2015 which has been sent by Crime Branch. He submits that the said letter has never been made part of the record/relied upon by the prosecution, as such at this juncture, the said letter could not have been taken on record for the reason that the said letters were not brought on record by the IO and that too deliberately.
5. I have gone through the record which has been produced by learned counsel for the revisionist himself.
6. Suffice to note that there is an order dated 15.10.2015 by learned MM itself. I fail to understand that in the teeth of such an order which has not been challenged at all by the ld. counsel for the revisionist, how he could have taken this plea being agitated in the present revision petition.
7. Investigation may continue and there can be more than one chargesheet in a sense supplementary chargesheets can be filed.
CR. No.33/2022 Surinder Pal Vs. State Page 4 of 6This is moreso common in cases where there is an element of forgery and forensic examination is required which may take time or there is any information which has to be collated or verified.
8. IO had presented the investigation report in the Court viz- a-viz CBSE and the same was duly taken on record by the Court and duly supplied to the accused as well. The name of the witnesses were also added/directions were passed therein. In any eventuality, the order dated 15.10.2015 de hors there being any supplementary chargesheet by itself could be construed to be an order under Section 311 CrPC. Section 311 CrPC is widely couched. It duly empowers the Court to take into account the relevant witnesses/record and that too at any stage provided the evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case.
It is not the case of the revisionist that the said material was extraneous to the controversy involved in the chargesheet.
9. Delving on the other limb of the arguments that there was a corresponding letter dated 06.07.2015 whereafter the report has been received from CBSE i.e. from Delhi and Ajmer respectively, nothing prevents the revisionist to cross examine the IO on the said aspect. I am not commenting anything else as this issue can be agitated during the cross examination of IO/witnesses. It is already 13 years old matter. The FIR is of the year 2009.
10. I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 26.11.2021. The said order by itself takes into account the already concluded issue as to the examination of the witnesses with the record.
CR. No.33/2022 Surinder Pal Vs. State Page 5 of 6Infact to my mind the application under Section 311 CrPC which was filed later on had delayed the recording of evidence on the specious ground that the documents should be filed with the supplementary charge-sheet.
11. As a fortiori, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.
12. Nothing mentioned hereinabove shall tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
13. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court.
14. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court today on 09.03.2022 (Sumit Dass) ASJ-3 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi CR. No.33/2022 Surinder Pal Vs. State Page 6 of 6