JAGBIR SINGH ALIAS LILU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the statement of Daya Nand son of Jug Lal a resident of village Mitha Thal, District Bhiwani case FIR No. 211 dated 19.9.1991 was registered at Police Station, Sadar, Bhiwani, under Section 364 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. During the investigation of the case dead body of Manoj Kumar was recovered and the offence was converted to Section 302 Indian Penal Code. After completion of the investigation charge- sheet was presented against the petitioner and Umed Singh brother of the petitioner. They were charged for offences under Section 302/34 and 201 Indian Penal Code and 7 witnesses were examined. On 1.5.1992 examination-in- chief of Daya Nand complainant was recorded when the case was adjourned at the instance of counsel for the complainant who wanted to move an application to summon an enquiry file from Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhiwani. Subsequently an application was moved by the public prosecutor for permission to produce evidence of a confession made by the petitioner during an enquiry conducted by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhiwani. The application was opposed by the petitioner but the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani passed order dated 20.10.1992 summoning the record of the enquiry. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the above said order by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) IT was alleged in the petition that the impugned order summoning the enquiry file and allowing the prosecution to examine and cross-examine the witnesses with regard to the statements recorded during the enquiry was illegal as the statements could not be looked into in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952. The enquiry conducted by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhiwani was a fact-finding enquiry similar to the enquiry conducted by a commission under the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952 and the provisions of the said Act were applicable to the present case. The statements recorded during the enquiry were not admissible and could not be considered during the trial of a criminal case.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties.