S C CHHABRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ihave been taken through the petition. Paragraph 6 of the said petition sets out the following conclusions arrived at by the SHO from the report of investigation and on the basis whereof he had moved the Court for discharge of the petitioner and ShriVirender Kumar aftercompleting the investigation:- (a) No. oral or documentary evidence came on file to establish that Complainant was provided with smack before or after removal of kidney; (b) The erison of Complainant that kidney was removed against his Will and consent was obtained by deception could not be corroborated by any oral, documentary or circumstantial evidence; (e) That it had rather been established during investigation that Complainant wanted to secure more money and that is why he lodged the complaint; (d) The Complainant reported the matter to press only after coming in contact with Shri P.K. Chanalla, a political leader, to pressurise the doctors and receipient in order to extract more money from them; (e) Moreover, the incident took place in May, 1992, and he reported about the same in March, 1993."

(2.) The complete record was placed before the Trial Court alongwith the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., wherein it was stated that primafacie case has been made out against the petitioner. The Magistrate on 2nd November, 1993, after perusing the said report and the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has found as under:-

(3.) I have asked Mr. Mathur if there was any confession recorded by the police either under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or otherwise. His reply was in the negative. I then called upon Mr. Ahluwalia to show from the record the said confession on the part of the accused.