Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This is a revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'CrPC') filed by the victim against the order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-02), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Case FIR No. 448/2014, Police Station Subzi Mandi under sections 323, 354, 341, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC'), whereby the application moved by the revisionist-victim for providing the copy of CD for the purpose of refreshing memory before recording her evidence was dismissed with cost of rupees 2,000/-.

2. I have heard the arguments on behalf of the revisionist and State-respondent no.1. None has appeared on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3 (accused) after service of the notice of revision upon them.

Submissions

3. Ms. Amrita Dhami, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist-victim has submitted that copy of CD is required for the revisionist before leading the evidence for the purpose of refreshing memory and other purposes also. The learned Trial Court had not marked the presence of revisionist after lunch (02:30 PM) while she appeared before learned Trial Court as per the order of Hon'ble Court.

4. Ms. Dhami further submitted that learned Trial Court had not only dismissed the application of revisionist but also imposed the cost of rupees 2,000/- and ignored the fact that Investigating Officer submitted that he had retired from the service and has not brought laptop on 17.08.2022, which was ordered by learned Trial Court earlier and, insisted the revisionist to lead her evidence without refreshing memory.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State-respondent no. 1 has not opposed the revision petition.

victim) and therefore, same cannot be relied by her for refreshing her memory.

7. By the impugned order, application under Section 91 CrPC moved by the revisionist - victim was dismissed. As per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sethuraman v Rajamanickam, Criminal Appeal No. 486-487/2009 decided on 18.03.2009 order on application under section 91 CrPC for production of documents is the order of interlocutory nature, in which case revision under section 397(2) of the CrPC is not maintainable. The application under section 91 of the CrPC was filed for the purpose of supplying of copy of CD which is already on record. As the CD which is already on record, the application under section 91 CrPC is not maintainable because under the said provision the person in whose possession or power such document or other thing is believed to be, is summoned requiring him to attend and produce it. But in the present case, the said document / other thing is already part of the chargesheet. By way of the said application, the revisionist - victim wants to get copy of the CD for the purpose of refreshing her memory before recording of her evidence. In the impugned order itself, it is made clear that the revisionist herein is not precluded from seeing the contents of the CD when it is played in the open Court for clarification of the Court.