SAJJAN SINGH AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. Sajjan Singh and Rajendra Singh petitioner are alleged to be facing their trial before the learned lower court for offences Under section 420, 406 r.w. Sec. . 120-B IPC. It was stated at bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as many as 202 criminal cases for same offences were registered against the petitioners throughout the State of Raj. in various courts and looking to the number of such cases, the State Government constituted a Special Court, Stayed Special Court (Amfort Agro Finance Co, Ltd. cases, Jaipur and a Senior Magistrate, rank of A.C.J.M., was appointed as Presiding Officer of that court to dispose of those cases. Accordingly all cases pending against the petitioners in various courts throughout the State, were transferred to the said court. Three cases numbered as Criminal Case No. 1/96, 2.96, 3/96 appear to have been taken up by the learned Magistrate together and vide his order dated 17.4.96 he clubbed the same for recording the evidence in those cases. On 9.12.96 the learned Magistrate heard the parties for framing charge and framed the charge also.

(3.) On 29.4.97 when PW1 Mahaveer Singh, PW2 V.K. Mathur and two other prosecution witnesses were produced to be examined, the learned defence counsel took an objection to the effect that copies of the documents Under section 173 Cr.RC. were not supplied to the accused persons, as required by Sec. 207 Cr.RC. The learned Magistrate while disposing such objection by his impugned order dated 29.4.97, observed in the opening lines of his order that in the earlier order-sheets there was a mention of the fact that copies of the documents Under section 173 Crimial P.C. had been duly supplied to the accused persons, however, in the last lines he observed that it was also right that the accused persons had not been supplied copies of the documents Under section 173 Cr.RC. The order of the learned Magistrate on the point of supplying the copies of the documents Under section 173 Cr.PC. to the accused persons is contradictory. Any way, the learned defence counsel did not apply to cross-examine PW2 V.K. Mathur and two other witnesses, examined on that day, with regard to the examination of PW1 Mahaveer Singh, the learned Magistrate observed that though the objection of not receiving the copies of the documents Under section 173 Cr.RC. had been raised by the accused, though at some what a belatory stage, yet the cross-examination of the witness was required to be defend. He accordingly deferred the cross-examination' on PW1 Mahaveer Singh. But at the same time the learned Magistrate further observed that the accused petitioners shall obtain the copies of the documents Under section 173 Cr.RC. The cases are now reportedly fixed in the month of Aug., 1997, for recording statements of prosecution witnesses. Before commencing the trial of an accused, compliance of section 207 Cr.RC. is necessary. The mandate contained in section 207 Crimial P.C. is that in any case where the prosecution has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the documents, enumerated in clauses (i) to (v) of the main section. The mandate contained in the main section 207 Cr.RC. stands relax to some extent by the two provides mention thereunder. The first provide says that the Magistrate may after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reason given by the police officer for the request direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused. Clause (iii) of section 207 Crimial P.C. mentions that the statements recorded under sub-sec. (3) of section 161 Crimial P.C. of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub-sec. (3) of section 173 Cr.RC. shall be supplied to the accused. The other proviso to section 207 Crimial P.C. says that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in court. It is thus clear that only in cases of such statements of the witnesses a part of whose statement has been requested to be excluded under sub-sec. (6) of section 173 Cr.RC. and such other documents which are voluminous, the copies of the documents Under section 173 Crimial P.C. are required to be supplied to the accused.