Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Dr. Abha Jain vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 25 September, 2018

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR


       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2928/2018

Dr. Abha Jain
                                                      ----Petitioner
                              Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp
                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)      :   Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Advocate, with
                           Mr. Kinshuk Jain
For Respondent(s)      :   Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, PP for State




  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA



                              Order

25/09/2018

     Application for early listing bearing inward No.3/19.9.2018

has been filed.

     Ms.   Meenakshi   Pareek,   learned   Public   Prosecutor,   has

submitted that due to pendency of main case, matter is not being

argued by the petitioner before the trial court and consideration of

charges has been unnecessarily delayed.

     On joint request and consent by learned counsel for the

parties, application bearing inward No.3/19.9.2018 is allowed and

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2928/2018 is taken on board.

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2928/2018:

     Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to

assail the order dated 7.5.2018 passed by the Special Judge &
                      (2 of 3)                      [CRLMP-2928/2018]



Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act No.1, Jaipur,

whereby prayer of the petitioner to furnish true and correct

transcription of compact disc (CD) has been declined.

     Shri R.N. Mathur, learned senior counsel, during the course

of arguments has submitted that transcription of CD relied by the

prosecution is not correct as the same is not faithful reproduction

of contents of the CD. Learned senior counsel has submitted that

the petitioner has also prepared transcription of CD supplied,

hence, same should be taken into consideration at the time of

consideration of charges.

     Attention of the counsel has been drawn to the judgment

rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra

Nath Padhi, 2005(1) SCC 568, wherein it has been held that

only the documents relied by the prosecution at the time of

framing of charge can be taken into consideration and the material

provided by the accused cannot be considered as the accused can

produce and prove the same at the time of leading defence

evidence.

     Consequently, prayer of the petitioner that the petitioner

should be permitted to provide true transcription of CD is rejected

with liberty to the petitioner to prove the same by leading defence

evidence. However, it cannot be denied that the CD is part of

challan filed by the prosecution and hence, there is merit in the

submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner

that at the time of consideration of charges CD can be played in the court and contents thereof can be noted by the court at the time of formulation of charges.

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2928/2018] Therefore, the present petition is disposed of by directing the trial court to play the Compact Disc (CD) in presence of counsel for the parties, at the time of consideration of charges.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J Govind/ Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)