HIMMAT LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before the learned Sessions Judge it was argued that the recovery was not made from the house of the accused. That argument was not accepted by the learned Sessions Judge as according to him there was sufficient evidence on the record of the case that the recovery of articles was made from the house of the accused. In spite of this clear cut finding the learned counsel Shri Mehta vehemently submitted on 17.9.98 before this Court that recovery was not made from the house of the accused. Because of this to rule out any doubt, this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to call for the case diary and also produce seizure 'panchnama'.

(2.) But, it is most unfortunate that the learned Public Prosecutor has not received the case diary and seizure panchnama in this case till today. In my opinion, the act of I.O. in not sending the case diary and seizure panchnama to learned Public Prosecutor amount to interference with administration of justice as without case diary and seizure panchnama this Court is prevented from effectively deciding the case today, which is nothing but a prima facie case of contempt.

(3.) However, in the interest of justice learned Public Prosecutor is given last and final opportunity to call for the case diary and seizure panchnama before 14.10.1998 and also to inform the I.O. to remain personally present before this Court without fail on 14.10.1998 to show cause as to why appropriate proceedings should not be initiated against him. It is made clear that if I.O. fails to remain personally present on 14.10.1998 at 10.30 a.m. the appropriate orders will be passed on that day i.e. on 14.10.1998.