[vinod kumar Namdeo]

Respected Sir ,
Thanks for the valuable reply.
I would like to furthur seek to clarify on the issues.

1. The PC act 1988 is silent on Procedure to be followed in investigation.

2. the present Investigation agency (SPE, Lokayukta) has No written down and approved procedures/guidelines to be followed in the offences committed under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act.

3. If certain procedures followed by the Investigation agencies are NOT as per Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Evidence collected is not as per Indian Evidence Act.

4. The Procedures followed by the Investigation casts a serious doubt and suspicion on the prosecution story and also manifests the mala fide intention of the Investigation agency in connivance with the complainant.

My Query:

1. Can the legality of such procedures followed by the Investigating agencies be challanged in the court of law if the cognizance of the case has not be taken and charges have not been framed by the Judge.

2. what is the relief available to the accused under such a situation if a prejudice has been caused to him due to above illegality committed by the investigation agency.

[vinod kumar Namdeo]

Repected Sir,
Thanks for the quick and helpful response. I have another query on the same issue .

In a recent judgement in High Court of MP in Buddha Sen Kumhar vs Sate of MP ,MCRC no. 17905/2017 dated 15.11.2017 a law is laid down that COURT CAN ALLOW TO TAKE VOICE SAMPLE from the accused.(even if the accused does not agree)
In the above case , the accused (petitioner) did not agree to give his voice sample during the investigation therefore the Prosecution moved an application in the trial court .
Quoting the decision of Ritesh Sinha Vs state of UP , AIR 2013 SC 1132, the trial court court allowed the application and directed the applicant to provide voice samples to the Investigating agency as per the principles(methodology) laid down in Sudhir Chodhary Vs state(NCT of Delhi) (2016) 8 SCC 307.

Aggrieved by the above order of the trial court, the petitioner moved the above petition in the MP High Court on the ground that there is no provision for recording the the voice sample when investigation is over and charge sheet is filed .

The High Court after relying on the various judgements mentioned below laid the law that COURT CAN ALLOW TO TAKE VOICE SAMPLE FROM THE ACCUSED.
MY QUERY :
1.In view of the Supreme Court deferred judgement in Ritesh Sinha vs State of UP, will the above judgement of MP High Court apply specifically to the present petitioner or to all the similar cases in MP.
2. Can a High Court give a judgement on a law point pending in the Supreme Court .
3. Can the above judgement of High Court be reviewed in the same court or an Appeal can be made in the Supreme Court.Will it be beneficial for the petitioner.
4. Any other legal remedy you would like to suggest .

Judgements relied upon by the MP High Court
1.Ritesh Sinha vs state of UP
2.Sudhir Chaudhary vs Stae (NCT)
3.Rakesh Bist vs CBI ,2007 CriLJ 1535
4.Kathi Kalu Vs state of Bombay aIR 1961 SC 1808
5.Vikram Seth vs state of Punjab SC 4305
6.R M Malkani Vs state of mahrashtra AIR 1973 SC 157
7.State of AP vs AS Peter (2008) 2 SCC383
8.CBI vs state of Bihar 2012 Cri L J 3290
9.Anvar PV vs PK Basheer AIR 2015 SC 180

[vinod kumar Namdeo]

Respected Sir,

Thanks for the prompt and valuable advice .

In the present case ,as per the charge sheet filed by the Investigating agency , inspite of the presence of two panch witnesses none of them or any members of the trap team witnessed the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification .

The Panch witnesses have only witnessed the pre-trap and the trap proceedings without witnessing the alleged demand and acceptance .The alleged criminal misconduct has not been witnessed by any one except the false and malafide statement of the complainant.

In such a situation what is the legal remedy available to the accused.

In the above circumstances,if the accused files a discharge application and the trial court does not accept it ;What shall be the disadvantage to the accused in the future trial.

[Author]

Posts