Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 January, 2026
1 MCRC-2316-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
MCRC No. 2316 of 2026
(SANTOSH YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 30-01-2026
Shri Atul Jeswani - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Himanshu Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
When the matter is called out, Investigating Officer Shri Amit Mishra, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Majholi District Jabalpur is present in person.
It is submitted that the Investigating Officer has verified that CCTV cameras are installed in the warehouse where the incident had taken place but the DVR is not available. The Investigating Officer has submitted that as per his inquiry with the owner of the warehouse, it is informed that in pursuance to the earlier FIR which has been registered on 10.08.2023, the DVR is taken by the concerned authority and thereafter, no other DVR is installed and therefore, the CCTV footage are not available in the concerned warehouse.
This is very shocking at first sight that the Investigating Officer has not made any attempt to verify that whether any CCTV camera is available in the warehouse which are otherwise mandatory for such warehouses pursuant to the policy of the Warehousing Corporation as well as the agreement executed between the Corporation and the owner of warehouse.
The counsel for the applicant has raised a specific grievance that moong which are allegedly recovered from the present applicant are purchased from the Amkhera Whole Market and is shown recovery in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 31-01-2026 12:40:12 2 MCRC-2316-2026 alleged incident. As per his submission, in fact the owner in collusion with the chowkidar of the concerned warehouse have indulged in such activity of removing such food articles like moong from the godown. For that purpose, the CCTV footage are most relevant document.
However, the officer concerned has not cared till this Court has directed him to verify such aspect. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 23.01.2026, the officer has appeared before this Court and submitted that there is no CCTV footage. This Court has asked him to verify the same and today it is informed by him that though there is CCTV camera but DVR is not available. All these aspects create strong suspicion about the conduct of the Investigating Officer.
Let the Superintendent of Police District Jabalpur to look into the matter by calling the record of the case and also to pay personal visit to the said godown/warehouse and after looking to the matter in detail by conducting proper inquiry, shall submit report about the correct facts which are involved in the matter and also submit report regarding any negligence or connivance is found on the part of the concerned investigating officer.
Let the report be submitted before this Court within a period of two weeks from today.
Copy of this order be supplied to the State counsel who will forward the copy of the order to the Superintendent of Police District Jabalpur for further action.
It is clarified that no further time will be granted in the matter. The case will be considered on merit on the next of hearing.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 31-01-2026 12:40:123 MCRC-2316-2026 List the matter on 16.02.2026 .
It is made clear that the report shall be reached to this Court before next date of hearing and if required, the concerned officer shall also remain present before this Court with necessary materials.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT) JUDGE VV Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 31-01-2026 12:40:12