SURJIT SINGH Vs. DEWKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 19th august 2005, police station Gandhi -Nagar Jammu registered case under FIR No. 193/05 against appellant -accused (Accounts Assistant Officer) under section 420, read with section 467, 468, & 471 of RPC with the allegations that he sold forged/fake State Subject and another certificates/documents to needy people and had been nabbed while about to sell one, whereafter on search many forged/fake State -subject and other certificates were recovered from his possession. After arrest he was however released on bail under orders of CJM Jammu on 3.9.2005 and meanwhile under order No.303 -Acctts of 2005 dated 1.9.2005 he had already been placed under suspension by the government.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by registration of the case aforesaid the appellant instituted writ petition No 83/06 in this court for quashment thereof alonlwith a direction for registration of a Criminal case against certain officers of the police and vigilance department who he alleged wrongly implicated him in the case for their personal gains and tortured him while custody after he refused to illegally gratify them. He also sought payment of compensation and providing him personal security. During pendency of writ petition he appears to have filed CMP No. 987/06 to seek a direction upon respondent No. 5 to furnish the case diary pertaining to above said FIR and permit him to peruse the same which however did not find favour with the Id. writ -Court who ultimately dismiss the same vide order dated 1.12.2006 which is impugned in this appeal, on the grounds that learned writ court had erred in disallowing his application for permitting him to peruse the case diaries produced in the writ court be use police officers concerned had allegedly forged the case diaries to incorporate materials prejudicial to him only meant to implication in the criminal offence in which otherwise he was not involved and to cover up their illegal demands of bribe etc. During course of submissions appellants counsel and further elucidated the grounds taken in the appeal, while Mr. Rathore, appearing for otherside defended the impugned order as being correct in fact and law.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. Law is well settled that case diaries in criminal cases are ordinarily not open to inspection by the accused, otherwise than on being used by I.O for refreshing his memory during course of his deposition at the trial and that too to the extent of portion so used, in view whereof petitioners prayer could not be allowed, unless dis -allowing it would directly amount to a failure of justice which incidentally does not appear to be the case. On the contrary sole ground pleaded by petitioner to justify his prayer is his apprehension that concerned police officer(s) may have fabricated the case diaries in order to implicate him which to say least is simply untenable for want of any supporting material much -less the reliable. Secondly, whatever materials may finally appear against him in the case that may ultimately be instituted against him in the competent criminal court would certainly be available to petitioner for projecting his defence there -against due to which no prejudice would be Caused to him. In any case however, if any intervention of whatever kind is called for the concerned criminal court would certainly show appropriate indulgence to prevent a failure of justice which should dispel all the apprehensions from appellants mind. In over all consideration of the matter, therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of learned writ court.