Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Noting that cognizance of the offence has been taken and though further investigation under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. is not precluded, Crl.M.C.3763/2012 Page 2 but direction for fresh investigation for the purpose of recording of statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. afresh and for reconstruction of missing documents is not granted by trial court by observing that such a direction can be issued by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This is why the present petition has been filed.

5. This petition is opposed by learned counsel for contesting respondents by submitting that Code of Criminal Procedure does not permit fresh investigation for recording of statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. afresh and there is no justification to permit petitioner to get the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. recorded as such statements would be tailor-made and would cause grave prejudice to the respondents-accused.

6. The submissions advanced by both the sides have been considered in the light of the legal position as noticed in the cited decisions and thereupon, this Court finds that the probative value of such statements is not required to be prejudged. Any act or omission on the part of the investigating agency, whether designedly or otherwise, cannot be Crl.M.C.3763/2012 Page 3 permitted to perpetuate injustice as it would shake the confidence of the people in the administration of justice. It has been reiterated by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. CBI and Others (supra) that High Court can direct fresh/re-investigation if found to be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise, to secure ends of justice. Any failure or omission by the Investigating Officer cannot render the criminal prosecution futile. The apprehension of respondent-accused of their being prejudiced is misplaced because they will have full opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses in relation to the fresh statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of CPC. If petitioner is not permitted to record the statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and to reconstruct the missing documents, then it would amount to rendering the instant criminal prosecution otiose.

7. To secure the ends of justice, petitioner's application for recording of statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and for reconstruction of missing documents is hereby allowed. Petitioner is permitted to conduct and conclude this exercise within a period of twelve weeks.

8. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of while refraining to comment upon merits of this case.




                                                   (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                      JUDGE
APRIL 20, 2015
s



Crl.M.C.3763/2012                                                    Page 4