GIAN PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order dated 7.6.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Shimla reads as follows :-

(2.) The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the aforesaid order on the ground that reasonable opportunity was not given to him to oppose the cancellation report. On perusal of the record of the learned Trial Court, I find that notice of the cancellation report was given to the complainant- petitioner on 2.5.2003. The complainant-petitioner appeared in the Court and the only statement he made before the Court was that he was not satisfied with the investigation carried out by the police. He did not give the reasons why he was not satisfied. Any person whose complaint is being cancelled by the police would obviously not be satisfied by the action of the police. However, merely stating that the complainant is not satisfied is no justification for not accepting the cancellation report and some reasons either orally or in writing should have been placed on record by the petitioner in support of his submission that the cancellation report should not be accepted. This has not been done.

(3.) Having held so, I find that neither the cancellation report nor the opinion of the prosecution is on the file of the learned Trial Court. Vide order dated 30.6.2010, I had asked the learned District Judge, Shimla to conduct an inquiry into the matter and find out why the documents are not on record. The learned District Judge, Shimla has conducted an inquiry and according to him, the records, after the cancellation report was accepted, were sent back to the police. Copies of the said records have also been sent to this Court alongwith the report.