DAMODAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision filed on behalf of the applicant/accused Damodar Singh is directed against order dated 30.5.2015 passed by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi, in Session Trial No. 25/2014, whereby learned trial Judged had allowed the application filed by the prosecution under Section 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act read with Section 173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and permitted taking document numbers 2 to 71 appended to the application along with attested true copy of the report of technical report on record and allowed production of secondary evidence.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision may be summarized as hereunder: An FIR was lodged with the Economic Offences Wing of the State against the applicant/accused Damodar Singh and 19 other co-accused persons in the year 1997 for offences committed under Sections 409, 420, 467 and 468 read with Section 120-B of the I.P.C. in the year 1994, in respect of the works executed under Special Work Plan for the District Sidhi. After investigation, the charge-sheet in the matter was filed in the year, 2014. The Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi, framed charges as aforesaid, against the applicant and other co-accused on 24.6.2014.

(3.) During the course of trial, prosecution moved an application (Annexure A/1) under Sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act and 173 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to file secondary evidence of the technical report and the documents filed therewith in the form of verified true copies. It was submitted on the basis of a letter written to the District Prosecution Officer, Sidhi, by the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Rewa, dated 19.1.2015 (Annexure A/3); that the original inquiry report relating to the works executed under Special Work Plan for District Sidhi, in the year 1994-95, is not available but only photo copy is available. The original note-sheet bearing initials of the then Regional Additional Commissioner, Shri B.P. Singh, on each page, is available in the file. It was further submitted that it appears that inquiry report was prepared on the basis of the note-sheet. The original inquiry report was kept by Shri B.P. Singh with himself. Shri B.P. Singh has retired and has since expired. The death certificate of Shri B.P. Singh was appended to the letter. Inspite of the best efforts, the whereabouts of the original inquiry report could not be ascertained. Thus, the original inquiry report is not traceable and there is no possibility of the report being traced in near future. In aforesaid circumstances, the application for permission to adduce secondary evidence was moved.