SITA RAM MISHRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Restrain is a virtue of a judicial officer. From the impugned order of the learned Magistrate I find that on his report to the police authorities, action has been taken against the Investigating Officer. However, the facts are that when accused Chhotu Ram was produced before the learned Magistrate he found that some statements recorded under section 161 Cr.RC. were not written in the hand- writing of the Investigating Officer. Some seizure memos were also not written in his own hand writing. The learned Magistrate citing AIR 1995 SC 196, observed that the Investigating Officer should have himself recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepare the memos in his own hand-writing. Needless to say that this citation does not relate to the subject. It is a case named as Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Asian Art Printers (P) Ltd. & Ors. etc. etc. I remember that the High Court had issued a circular long ago directing the subordinate courts that whenever they cite some ruling, they should mention the name of the parties as well. The learned Magistrate himself did not do so.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner cited AIR 1971 SC 1525, Muni Lai Vs. Delhi Administration in which it has been held that mere fact that some of the statements are written by subordinate officer at the dictation of authorised officer does not amount to investigation by unauthorised officer. A bare recording of sub-sec.(3) of Sec. 161 Crimial P.C. makes it clear that it was not necessary that the statement should have been written by the Investigating Officer in his own hand writing, much so in note in diary No.2 on 15.7.96, it was mentioned by the Investigating Officer that he had sprain in his hand, (supported by Medical Certificate) therefore, he was not able to write in his own hand. He dictated to L.C. Jagdish Prashad No. 573 and he himself signed the statements and the memos.

(3.) Learned PP has been fair enough not to oppose the petition.