RAMADHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision aries out of the judgment and order dated 13.8.1982 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1982 releasing the applicant on probation of two years and on furnishing persunal bond of Rs. 2000/- with two sureties for keeping good behaviour. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.3.1982 passed by the learned VII Munsif Magistrate, Varanasi in case No. 465 of 1982.

(2.) Learned counsel has submitted that in this case the Investigating Officer was not examined, sanction was granted without application of mind, no copy of the recovery memo was supplied to the accused under Section 100 (7) Cr. P.C. and no respectable witness was called for during search and seizure.

(3.) Against that learned A.G.A has referred a case of Baboo Lal Sahu v. State of Orissa wherein it has been held that mere non examination of the Investigating Officer would not automatically vitiate the prosecution case. The accused has to establish that non examination of the said witness caused prejudice to the accused and onus to establish such prejudice lies on the accused. It has becn submitted that the Investigating Officer would have thrown proper light with regard to the recovery of the articles from the accused. This argument has no substance as it is not the prosecution case that the Investigating Officer was present to the spot.