RAJU @ RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

(2.) On 28.7.95, it was argued that petitioner is involved in number of cases of similar type, then time was allowed to PP to produce the list of those case. On 8.8.95 again the time was sought. Even today the PP failed to produce the list of similar type of cases in which the petitioner is said to be involved.

(3.) Shri Biri Singh submitted that recovery of entire amount & Katta has been made from the building, which is in possession of co-accused Banwari, though part of the amount is recovered at the instance of accused. If part of the amount was taken by petitioner, why he kept the same in the building which is in possession of co-accused Banwari. No explanation has been given by learned PP, nor counsel nor complainant has explained this quarry. It appears to me, that the investigation is not fair. The recovery of entire amount & Katta from the building of co- accused Banwari has not been disputed by learned P.P.