AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.P. Mittal, J.
Crl. M.A. 1960/2013 & 3314/2013 in CRL. M.C. 3348/2012
Crl. M.A. 2058/2013 & 3312/2013 in CRL. M.C. 127/2013
By virtue of these Applications under Article 134-A of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C.) the Petitioner seeks issuance of a certificate of fitness to file an Appeal in the Supreme Court against the order dated 04.02.2013 passed by this Court dismissing a petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It may be noted that two Applications one u/s 340 Cr. P.C. and another u/s 91 Cr. P.C. were filed by the Petitioner. The sum and substance of the two Applications can be extracted from the order dated 13.08.2012 passed by the learned ASJ hereunder:-
.... It is submitted that in the statement which was made in the correspondence dated 25.07.2010 by the Joint Commissioner of Police to Shri P.K. Jalali, copies of which were sent to Secretary to Lt. Governor, Delhi Additional Secretary (Home), GNCT of Delhi, S.O. to Special Commissioner of Police/Secretary and DCP, Headquarters, PHQ and other officers, it was stated that three persons wearing masks started firing indiscriminately upon Smt. Phoolan Devi. Furthermore, in the proceedings of the Parliament from 25.07.2001 to 31.07.2001, it is mentioned that according to FIR facts gathered from Senior Police officials, the assailants were wearing masks. It is submitted that as per the challan, accused persons were allegedly identified at the time of incident, which is in strong contradictions to the statements made initially in the Parliament and in the official documents. It is submitted that investigations are concocted and fabricated in order to procure illegal detention from the court of law. Therefore, offence of perjury has been committed for which complaint had to be made u/s 340 Cr. P.C.
The said application is supported with another application u/s 91 Cr. P.C. seeking production of the letters written to various agencies and also the statements recorded in the Parliament.
The State has filed a joint reply to the application u/s 91 CrPC and u/s 340 CrPC, wherein the documents which have been sought are not within the power and possession of the investigating agency. Moreover, the documents pertaining to Parliament proceedings have already been placed on record by the accused himself. Moreover, it is no where claimed that these documents are required for the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. None of the prosecution witnesses are the witness to any of these documents. Therefore, there is no ground on which the said documents can be summoned. For the same reason, the application u/s 340 CrPC is not maintainable....
In the Application u/s 340 Cr. P.C. the Petitioner''s prayer was for the prosecution of the investigating officer and of other persons who had filed the challan (the chargesheet) against the Petitioner allegedly on false and fabricated evidence. The learned ASJ ordered for taking up of the application after disposal of the case on the premise that the question whether the Petitioner who had been challaned/prosecuted on false and fabricated evidence shall be tested at the time of final adjudication. The Application u/s 340 Cr. P.C. was therefore held to be premature. The Application u/s 91 of the Cr. P.C. came to be dismissed holding "that all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined and it has not been pointed out as to why these documents are required at this stage and whether these are required to be put to any prosecution witness. Moreover, none of these documents have been authored by any of the prosecution witnesses. These documents at best can be used by the accused in his defence and he is at liberty to seek their production from concerned agency which is not the prosecuting agency and prove them as per law in his defence.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order dated 04.02.2013 raises an important question of law as formulated in Crl. M.A. Nos. 1960/2013, 3314/2013, 2058/2013 and 3312/2013 and thus a certificate of fitness to file a SLP may be issued to the Petitioner. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on Chandra Prakash and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, ; Gangadhar Behera and Others Vs. State of Orissa, ; Chapter 1, Part E of Record of Evidence in Criminal Cases; Virender Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi ; Mustakeem Vs. The State of U.P., ; Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Others, ; Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot Vs. State of Maharashtra, ; Lincoln J. Wills v. Shamsul Haque & Ors. 1974 Crl. LJ 23 (V 80 C 6) ; Amin and Another Vs. The State, ; Bhanu M. Vakil Vs. Chandra Oshiram Keswani and another, ; V.K. Sasikala v. State Rep. by Superintendent of Police, 2012 (4) Cri 146 ; Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra and Another, ; Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, ; Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, ; Brady v. Mary Land 1963 (American Supreme Court); A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Challappan and Others, ; Ajay Kumar Vs. State and Another, ; Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, ; S. Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, ; Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak and another etc. etc., ; State Bank of India and Another Vs. S.B.I. Employees'' Union and Another, ; Sarjubhaiya Mathurbhaiya Kahar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police and Another, ; Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. Joy Shanker Bhattacharyya, and Nar Singh and Another Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, .
I have gone through the Applications as well as the case laws cited at the Bar. To my mind, the order dated 04.02.2013 does not raise any important question of law so as to issue a certificate as prayed for by the Petitioner. The authorities cited are not relevant on the issue raised in the Applications. The Petitioner is therefore not entitled to the grant of certificate of fitness. The Applications are accordingly dismissed.