STATE OF H P Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Himachal Pradesh, stands, aggrieved by the, order, pronounced on, 18.4.2017, by the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, wherethrough, it barred the Investigating Officer concerned, to, make further investigations. The reasons cast therein, are borne, in paragraph-7 thereof, paragraph whereof, is, extracted hereinafter:-

(2.) For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the impugned order is not, anvilled, upon, any legally sound interpretation, being meted, vis-a-vis, the mandate, borne in Section 173, sub Section (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C.). However, before proceeding to make, an, interpretation, vis-a-vis, the hereinafter extracted mandate, embodied in sub Section (8) of Section 173, Cr.P.C., the, stark fact, for, resting, the, contentious factum, is, comprised, vis-a-vis, some amongst, the, accused namely Mahesh Kumar Gupta, and, Surender Singh Deshta, given theirs being Public Notaries, and, also theirs being public servants, thereupon, before assumption, of, a valid jurisdiction, or cognizance qua the the charges, hence by the learned Court, rather enjoins, the meteings qua them, of, the imperative prosecution sanction, rather, by the competent authority:-

(3.) For the reasons assigned hereinafter, yet, the rejection of the prosecution endevour, by the learned trial Court, hence to collect the apposite prosecution sanction, and, thereafter appended, it, with a supplementary challan, is untenable, (i) as, the connotation, of, the phrase "further investigations" as occurrs, in, Section 173 Cr.P.C." does not require, qua the prosecution in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, its availing the afore provisions, its thereat holding the requisite oral as well, as documentary evidence, (ii) rather the afores' is mandated, to, emerge or make appearances, only upon, such further investigations, being permitted by the learned Court concerned, (iii) and, when the prosecution, strives to after, the requisite permission being granted, qua it, by the learned Court concerned, hence obtain the requisite prosecution sanction, (iv) and, when the afore sanction, is, obviously, a, piece, of, documentary evidence, and, also hence necessary, for, ensuring the learned trial Judge concerned, to, assume, a, valid cognizance, vis-a-vis, the offences, constituted in the FIR, and, qua the accused concerned, (v) thereupon, the afore reasons constituted, in the impugned order are flimsy, and, are not made, on a sound and proper appreciation, of, the mandate, of, the afore statutory provisions.