SABIR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision, preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC, is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.5.2002, passed by the Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 1/2002, whereby the conviction of the accused revisionist Sabir Hussain under Section 420, 467 & 471 IPC and sentence awarded to him to undergo R.I. for five years for each of the offence (directed to run concurrently) along with fine of Rs. 2,000/ - each (total Rs. 6,000) vide judgment and order dated 24.1.2002, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital in Criminal Case No. 1853/2000, has been affirmed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that in the intervening night of 18/19.6.2000, at about 11 pm, when the forest officials, namely, Bhim Bahadur and Soran Lal were on duty at the Barrier of Halduwa Check Post of the forest department, Ramnagar, a truck, owned by the revisionist and loaded with forest woods, was stopped at the said Check Post. The truck was checked by the a forenamed forest officials. Revisionist came out from the cabin of the truck along with relevant papers of the truck, transit pass, permit etc. When the forest officials were busy in checking of those papers, the revisionist along with the truck escaped from the spot. The forest officials could not chase the truck due to lack of transport facility. They took all those papers to their superior officer, and on enquiry, all the papers were found to be forged one. On the forged transit pass, the name of the truck driver was mentioned as Babbu. With these averments, Bhim Bahadur (PW3) and Soran Lal lodged an FIR on 21.6.2000 against the revisionist with PS Ramnagar. A case was registered against the accused revisionist. Investigation was conducted and during the course of investigation, when search was made at the place of the revisionist, a lot of other incriminating articles including 21 forged seals were recovered from him. On completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was submitted and after recording the statements of all the fact witnesses as well as the evidence of the Investigating Officer and other evidence, the accused revisionist was convicted and sentenced, as discussed above.

(3.) THE sole contention, put forth by the learned Counsel for the revisionist, is that the selfsame police officer, who raided the place of the revisionist and recovered the incriminating articles from there, cannot proceed with the further investigation and file the chargesheet against the accused. In support of his contention, learned Counsel cited a judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court rendered in case of Gyan Chand v. The State of Rajasthan reported in : 1993 CRI. L. J. 3716, wherein it was held that if a police officer, who after receiving information of an offence makes search and seizure, then further investigation of the case personally by him is not fair. It is violative of the principles of criminal jurisprudence.