DHARAMPAL SINGH GOND Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Bail application filed by Shri K.N. Agrawal was dismissed by this Court on 27-6-1989 in Misc. Cr. Case No. 1280/89 on the ground that the point under Section 167(2) Cr. P.C., raised before this court, was not raised before the Sessions Judge. Shri Agrawal went to the Sessions Judge, back, and brought from him another order. Now aggrieved by that order of the Sessions Judge, Shri Agrawal has again come before this Court On perusal of the order passed by the Sessions Court, it appears that applicant No.1 Dharam Pal Singh was arrested on 26-10-1988 while co-accused Raja arid Samaylal were arrested on 27-10-1988. The police filed charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class on 7-11989. Thus it was within 90 days that the challan was filed. The challan lacked the report of the Chemical Analyst and for that report, the Court awaited for about 4 months, and thus, Shri Agrawal is aggrieved that the applicants were detained unnecessarily for such a long time. He, therefore, -contends that as the complete challan was not filed by the police, as is required under Section 167 (2), Cr. P.C., it was not the compliance of law, as indicated. Hence not injustice, but prejudice was caused to the applicant. It is to be seen whether the challan was filed in terms of law or not. The police challan includes the first information report, seizure, post mortem report, any memorandum and the statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. So far as the other document like the report of Chemical Examiner, separate provisions have been made in the Cr. Procedure Code and they are Sections 293 and 294. From the perusal of these two provisions, it becomes very much apparent that such reporter which are prescribed in sub-Section (4) of Section 293, Cr. P.C., should be accepted by the Court during the trial but before the closure of the prosecution evidence. In my opinion, if the report of the Chemical Examiner was not filed along with the challan on 7-1-1989, then it cannot be said that the challan filed against the applicants was incomplete. The documents referred to in sub-Section (4) of Section 293, Cr. P.C. have special importance because they are public documents and they can be admitted without any formal proof as provided in the Indian Evidence Act

(2.) I am, therefore, of the opinion that the challan as envisaged in Section 167 (2) and Section 173 of the Cr. P.C., was filed by the police on 7 -1-1989 and hence the applicants do not deserve the benefit of Section 167 (2), Cr. P.C.

(3.) This application is, therefore, dismissed.