Himachal Pradesh High Court
Hem Raj And Another vs State Of H.P on 23 June, 2017
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CrMMO No. 192 of 2017
Decided on: June 23, 2017
___________________________________________________________________
.
Hem Raj and another .........Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent
___________________________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting1?
___________________________________________________________________
For the petitioners: Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Additional Advocate
General.
___________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, a prayer has been made for quashing order dated 31.5.2017, passed by Special Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, HP in Cr. Misc.
Application No. 150/2017, in ST No. 08/2015, titled Hem Raj vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby application having been field by the applicant-accused under Section 311 CrPC has been rejected.
Perusal of application, annexure P-1, filed under Section 311 CrPC suggests that applicant-accused made a prayer before court below to allow accused to re-examine, in-charge Police Post Tunnu Hatti with regard to CCTV recording of police post Tunnu Hatti, from 12.00 am (22.12.2014) to 12.00 pm (23.12.2014), since accused failed to examine in-charge police post Tunnu Hatti on the aforesaid point. Reply having been filed on behalf of respondent-State to the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? .
::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 23:59:37 :::HCHP -2-application suggests that CCTV footage on 22.12.2014 qua period starting from 12.00 am to 12.00 pm, on 23.12.2014, could not be made available because, as per report of expert, CCTV camera .
installed at police check post Tunnu Hatti, has capacity of 1 TB for recording footage as such, only five days footage can be stored and thereafter, recording gets deleted automatically. At this stage, it would be profitable to take note of paragraph 2 of the reply having been filed by respondent, which is reproduced as under:
"2. That the contents of para No. 2 of the application are admitted to the extent that there are CC TV Cameras affixed at Tunuhatti barrier. However, it has been reported by the Incharge PS Chowari that the alleged CCTV footage of dated 22.12.14 at about 12 AM to 23.12.2014 till 12 cannot be made available because as per the report of expert, the CC TV camera installed at TCP Tunnhatti for security reasons have a capacity of 1 TB for recording footage and as such only recent 5 days footage gets stored and thereafter the recording get deleted automatically. Therefore, due to these reasons it shall be a futile exercise to summon the Incharge PP Tunuhatti alongwith CC TV footage for the desired dates. Copy of expert report as well as the letter of Incharge PS Chowari are attached herewith."
2. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, while inviting attention of this Court to the reply having been filed by aforesaid respondent stated that since it has specifically been stated by Superintendent of Police, Chamba, District Chamba, that CCTV footage for dated 22.12.2014 cannot be made available, no fruitful purpose, if any, would be served, in case Incharge Police Post Tunnu Hatti is re-examined by the accused.
::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 23:59:37 :::HCHP -3-3. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, learned counsel representing the petitioners-accused stated that factum recorded in para 2 of the reply as reproduced above, can be stated on oath before the learned .
trial Court by the Incharge, Police Post Tunnu Hatti.
4. This Court, after having carefully perused reply, especially para 2, is of the view that no prejudice, whatsoever would be caused to the prosecution, in case Incharge Police Post Tunnu Hatti District Chamba, is allowed to be re-examined on the aforesaid point.
5. Accordingly, order dated 31.5.2017, passed by Special Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, HP in Cr. Misc. Application No. 150/2017, in ST No. 08/2015, is set aside. Incharge Police Post Tunnu Hatti, is allowed to be re-examined on specific question, as mentioned above, on the date to be fixed by the learned trial Court.
Petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any are also disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge June 23, 2017 (Vikrant) ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 23:59:37 :::HCHP