PETITIONER: JAGBIR WALIA Vs. RESPONDENT: DELHI ADMINISTRATION DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/11/1997 BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, B.N. KIRPAL ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997
Present;
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati
Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.N. Kirpal
P.P. Malhotra, Sr.Adv. B.B.Sawheny, Vineet Malhotra,
Shailendra Sharma, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Advs. with him for
the appellant.
K.C. Kaushik, Adv. for D.S.Mehra, Adv. for the Respondent
J U D G M E N T
The following of the Court was delivered:
NANAVATI, J.
The appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 9 of the Suppression of Immoral
Traffic Act. He challenged his conviction by filing an
appeal before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed. he
then preferred and appeal to the High Court, which was also
dismissed.
In this case, initially, this Court had issued notice
only with respect to ground No.7 raised in the Special Leave
Petition. Therein the point that was raised by the
appellant was the, in this case, the investigation was done
by a Sub-Inspector of Police and not by an Assistant
Commissioner of Police appointed for that purpose and
therefore the whole investigation was illegal and on the
basis of the material collected during such illegal
investigation, the appellant could not have been convicted.
Apart from the fact that the contention is not sound in law,
it is factually also incorrect. The Sub-Inspector of Police
after recording statement of the complainant called the
Assistant Commissioner of Police at the place of the
incident. The Assistant Commissioner after reaching there
recorded statements of other witnesses and also verified the
statement of the complainant. It was on the basis of the
material thus collected and verified by the Assistant
Commissioner of Police that the FIR was recorded and further
investigation was carried on. Therefore, it cannot be said
the the investigation made in this case was contrary to the
provisions of the Act. This appeal really deserves to be
dismissed on that ground alone.
The appellant has also filed an application to enlarge
the scope of the appeal and to permit the appellant to place
on record material in the shape of various FIRs and other
police records to show that the complainant and the
investigating officer are not creditworthy witnesses. In
the application, the appellant had only referred to such
material and later on, he produced copies of such material.
They are not certified copies and, therefore, we have not
taken any notice of them. Moreover, it will not be proper
to condemn the prosecution witnesses by now taking
additional evidence, in respect of which they did not have
any opportunity to controvert. We, therefore, reject that
application.
This appeal is therefore, dismissed. The appellant is
directed to surrender to custody immediately to serve out
the remaining part of his sentence.