SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. Bali at length and perused the record on file.

(2.) Vide order dated 20.7.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, at the time of framing of the charge, the Chief Judicial Magistrate formed a prima facie opinion that the investigation had not been made by the police thoroughly, as the original vendor was still available, who could throw light on the entire controversy had not been examined. He, therefore, directed the police to carry out further investigation. Against this order, the State of Haryana filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 41 of 1999. This revision petition had been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal with the observations that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had the power to order further investigation under Sec. 173(8) Code Criminal Procedure On the basis of further investigation, some statements under Sec. 161 Criminal Procedure Code have been recorded on 17.8.1999. The affidavits of the original vendor as well as the attesting witnesses have been taken. Having collected these materials, the prosecution was still hesitant in producing the documents before the Court. Consequently, the accused person filed an application with a prayer that the State be directed to produce the affidavits of Bhartu (original vendor), Ram Kishan, Shamsher Singh lambardar-attesting witnesses in court and to place the same on the judicial file so that the matter in controversy could be decided property. This application of the accused person had been allowed by order dated 7.12.1999. Mr. Bali has reiterated the submissions which were made before the Additional Sessions Judge to the effect that though the Investigating Officer collected the evidence on the direction of the Court, but the same cannot be directed to be placed on file as it is for the Investigating Officer to place such evidence on file which would help in the case of the prosecution. Mr. Bali has further submitted that it is for the prosecution to decide as to which evidence they wish to rely upon. By compelling the State to produce the evidence which may possibly be adverse to the case of the complainant prejudice has been caused to one case of the complainant.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. I am of the opinion that the trial court has all the inherent power to reach the truth in any controversy which is brought before it. Furthermore, I do not find much substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the court would be helpless even in the case where the prosecution is deliberately trying to keep out the evidence which may be in favour of the accused person. The function of the Investigating Agency is not merely to collect the evidence in favour of the prosecution. The underlying principle of investigation by police is to reach the truth of the controversy. In these circumstances, I do not find that nay miscarriage of justice has occurred by directing that the evidence collected on the basis of further investigation be placed on the judicial file. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.