BALBIR SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE precise grouse made by the petitioner is that before initiation of the proceedings in the complaint case, the police investigated the matter vide First Information Report No. 144 dated 4.9.1988, registered with Police Station, Sultanpur Lodhi. The investigation was conducted by more than one Investigation Officer and one of them was Mr. S.S. Bajwa, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective). It is further contended that said Mr. Bajwa recorded the statement of PW's Santokh Singh son of Chanan Singh and Chanan Singh son of Harnam Singh and now the said statements recorded by the police be supplied to the accused for using the same for confrontation purposes in accordance with law. The request of the petitioner has been turned down in the trial Court on the ground that no such statements are with the prosecutor and as such, cannot be supplied to the accused.

(2.) MR . Sangha counsel for the complainant has contended that no such statement was recorded by Mr. Bajwa, D.S. P. (Detective) and this plea has been raised merely to delay the proceedings.

(3.) THIS statement made by Additional Public Prosecutor is not a categorical denial of the fact that the statements of these witnesses were recorded by Mr. S.S. Bajwa. However, whether such statements were recorded or not still remains a disputed question of fact. Mr. Grewal has asserted in positive terms that the statements of these two witnesses were recorded by Mr. Bajwa and he shall be proving this fact. In view of this observation of Mr. Grewal, Mr. Sangha has very fairly conceded that the petitioner shall be entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting the aforesaid PWs summoned through process of law and then confront them with their previous statements.