BABULAL JHAD Vs. SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT LOKAYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present criminal revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.01.2015 passed by Special Judge (Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Dhar (M.P.) dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued the fact that the complainant has made a report to the SPE Lokayukta, Indore, regarding the conversations made between the complainant and the petitioner which was recorded in a micro taperecorder. After the preliminary enquiry, an FIR was registered against the petitioner, however, the accused was caught with the tainted currency notes and a chargesheet was filed in this matter. During the trial, the statements of the complainant -Parmanand (PW -1) and shadow witness Constable -Kamlesh (PW -2) have been recorded, wherein the shadow witness Kamlesh (PW -2) in Para -4 and 25 of the statements have asserted that on 17.12.2013 at about 6:15 am, the complainant -Parmanand and he himself were present at the Lokayukta Office, Indore and on the other hand, the complainant -Parmanand (PW -1) has made the statements in Para -21 and 22 denying the fact that on 17.12.2013 he had gone to the Lokayukta Office and handed over the micro taperecorder to the complainant.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Jitendra Singh Tomar Vs. Special Establishment of the Lokayukt, BHOPAL, LAWS (MPH) -2014 -7 -319 has very specifically held that "the question as to how for the document is relevant and helpful in the trial either to the prosecution or defence is not a question which has to be considered at this stage." The trial Court has erred in dismissing the application of the petitioner without relying upon the documents.