RAHUL TYAGI Vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the record of the case.

(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner :- FIR No. 119 dated 14.5.2002 was registered under Section 419 IPC at the Police Station South, Chandigarh against the petitioner on the statement of Sanjay Sharma and it was alleged against he petitionr that he appeared in the examination by way of impersonation in place of Davinder Singh who has not been arrested by the police. Even the challan has not been presented against said Davinder Singh. Considering the facts that the offence is compoundable with the intervention of the Court, the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat, where Sanjay Sharma appeared before the Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat on 19.1.2002 and made the following statement :-

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently submitted that Sanjay Sharma was not competent to make a statement as the offence was committed by the petitioner vis-a-vis C.B.S.E. which taking the examination. I do not subscribe to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. While submitting the challan against the petitioner only Sanjay Sharma was cited as a witness, besides the Investigating Officer, Sanjay Sharma ultimately is not likely to support the allegations of the prosecution. The investigation appears to be faulty when the prosecution has not been able to challan Davinder Singh.