Madhya Pradesh High Court
Praveen Alias Sheru Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 August, 2018
1
MCRC-30210-2018
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-30210-2018
(Praveen alias Sheru Jain Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 20-08-2018
Shri R.K. Sharma, senior counsel with Shri M.K. Chaudhary,
counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Awasthi, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Shri R.K. Shrivastava, counsel for the complainant. The explanation, which has been furnished by the SHO, Police Station Karahiya District Gwalior, is not acceptable. SHO Surendra Singh Kushwaha has mentioned in para 9 that when he was returning from the house of the DIG at 11:00 PM on 06.08.2018 after furnishing explanation to the concerned DIG, then he had received a phone call from HCM Kishore Singh informing him that original case diary in Crime No. 60/2017 has been traced, in which statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are enclosed. It is further mentioned that since HCM 223 Kishore Singh Bhadoriya and Court Munshi Janak Singh had not given him original case diary and had furnished only photocopy, therefore, photocopy was sent by him to the Court. It is further mentioned that if the original case diary would have been given by the HCM and Court Munshi then he would have definitely enclosed statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and FSL report.
Let copy of the Rojnamcha showing entry that petitioner had made an entry to meet the concerned DIG on 06.08.2018 at 11:00 PM be produced. He is also directed to produce copy of the permission of the SP or CSP concerned permitting him to meet the DIG at 11:00 PM at his residence along with the copy of the relevant provision of Police Manual as to whether SHO is entitled to meet the concerned DIG at his residence directly without fulfilling the requirement as mentioned above. The explanation of concerned HCM and Court Munshi be also filed that when original case diary was not available, then how could they obtain the photocopy in absence of the original case diary, i.e., what was the source of such photocopy.
2MCRC-30210-2018 Let SSP, Gwalior file an affidavit showing that what is the procedure for sending the case diary to the Court and whether the concerned SHO is required to tally it with the original case diary or not and whether there is requirement of any endorsement on the case diary or not that it has been tallied and it is as per the original case diary.
It is directed that from today on wards any case diary which is received in the office of Advocate General shall not be received unless and until there is an endorsement duly verified by the concerned SHO that he has tallied the photocopy and its original and it is the true, correct and complete photocopy of the original case diary.
Let this order be sent on wireless to all the concerned SP within the territorial jurisdiction of Gwalior Bench that henceforth they shall send the case diary with a verification and authentication by the concerned SHO that it is true, correct and complete copy of the original case diary and none of the pages of the original case diary are missing in the said true and verified copy.
Advocate General's office is directed to not to accept any case diary without such endorsement and verification from the concerned SHO because it amounts to wastage of precious time of the Court which this Court thinks is more valuable than the time of SHO or I.O.
Let record of disposed W.P. No. 5077/2017 be also called for.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge Later on:
Record of W.P. No. 5077/2017 is perused. Let register of Oath Commissioner Ms. Kusum Sharma be called for giving details of the entries made by her on 03.08.2017.
List the case on 22.08.2018.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge Abhi Digitally signed by ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Date: 2018.08.21 10:47:32 +05'30'