Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Chander Bawa vs Satpal Garg And Others ` on 12 December, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl.Misc.No.M- 39348 of 2012 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl.Misc.No.M- 39348 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.12.2012
Ramesh Chander Bawa .....Petitioner
versus
Satpal Garg and others ` .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) challenging order dated 7.12.2012 (Annexure P-8) and order dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure P-7) in case No.56 dated 15.6.2004 under Sections 192, 209, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 500, 506 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was necessary for the ends of justice to get the voice samples of the complainant and accused Prem Lal Verma and Ashok Kumar Verma compared with the voice recorded in the cassette Ex.CW 4/W from the Forensic Science Laboratory so that an opinion could be obtained as to whether there was any tampering in the said cassette or not.
Crl.Misc.No.M- 39348 of 2012 (O&M) 2
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
Learned trial Court, while dismissing the application moved by the petitioner vide order dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure P-7), has observed as under:-
"The complainant has failed to show as to how and when the alleged conversation recorded by him. Moreover, the original conversation has not been placed on record. The accused also admitted the conversation but the same is regarding the property sold by the sister of the complainant in which accused Prem Lal was agent. Furthermore, the accused have never arrested in the present case. In these circumstances, if the present application stands allowed, the accused shall be greatly prejudice and their fundamental and constitutional rights shall be defeated.
In view of the above discussion and after careful perusal of the case file, this court is of the considered opinion that the present application is nothing, but an abuse of the process of the law. Accordingly, finding no merit in the application of the applicant-complainant, the same stands dismissed."
Aggrieved by the said order passed by the trial Court, petitioner filed a revision petition before the Court of revision. The said revision petition was dismissed vide impugned order dated 7.12.2012 (Annexure P-8), wherein, it was observed as under:- Crl.Misc.No.M- 39348 of 2012 (O&M) 3
"Arguments on revision petition heard. The revisionist has assailed the order dated 31.10.2012 passed by Sh.Kanwal Kumar, learned JMIC, Panchkula, whereby application by him with a prayer for taking the voice sample of the accused to get compared the same with the voice recorded in cassette and also to see whether recorded cassette is free from tampering. However, request of the complainant/revisionist was dismissed on the ground that original conversation has not been placed on record. The respondents themselves admitted about the conversation but alleged that there is tampering in the recording. Moreover, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that accused cannot be forced to give voice sample. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that revision is not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the complainant- revisionist could not produce any law to show that accused- respondents can be forced to give voice sample for comparison. Therefore, under the given circumstances, this court finds no material irregularity or illegality in the order passed by learned Trial Court. However, Trial Court shall consider the recorded conversation in the light of other evidence led by complainant and may draw adverse inference against respondents who have refused to give sample of their voice for comparison. With these Crl.Misc.No.M- 39348 of 2012 (O&M) 4 observations, revision petition is disposed of. Copy of this order be sent to Trial Court. Papers be consigned to records, after due compliance."
Thus, in the present case, accused have admitted the factum of conversation but have alleged that there was tampering in the recording. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the trial Court shall consider the recorded conversation in the light of other evidence led by the complainant and may draw adverse inference against the respondents, who had refused to give sample of their voice for comparison. In these circumstances, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.
It is a settled proposition of law that the petitioner cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after dismissal of his revision by the Sessions Court as it would amount to a second revision. However, in a case of grave injustice, this Court can interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In the present case, no grave miscarriage of justice has occurred which would warrant interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE December 12, 2012 anita