Del. HC: Liquidated Damages Mentioned in Agreement Can’t be Awarded in Absence of Proof of Loss  ||  MP HC: S.375 Marital Sex Exemption Also Provides Exemption Under Section 377 of IPC  ||  SC: SARFAESI Doesn’t Give Any License to Bank Officers to Act Against the Scheme of Law  ||  All. HC: Court Can’t Mechanically Reject Application for Waiving Off Cooling Period u/s 13B of HMA  ||  Kar. HC: Acquittal Order Can’t be Put in Challenge by Stranger to the Case  ||  Kar. HC: Alternate Remedy Can’t be Used as China Wall Against Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction  ||  Bom. HC Upholds Constitutional Validity of Goa’s Green Cess Act  ||  Del. HC: Not Court’s Business to Demonstrate Morality of an Act unless it has Caused Harm  ||  Del. HC: Cost Accountants and Chartered Accountants Not Similarly Placed Under Law  ||  SC: No Party Ought to be Vexed Twice in a Litigation for One and the Same Cause    

Rajesh Mukundsingh Thakur and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra - (High Court of Bombay) (09 Aug 2018)

Investigating officer/agency, has power at any stage of trial, to place before Court such material that would assist investigating agency to put forward its case



By present writ petition, the Petitioners (original accused) have challenged order, whereby an application moved by the investigating officer for sending muddemal property consisting of mobile phones and memory card for forensic examination, has been allowed. The principal grievance of the Petitioners is that, the said property was seized on 14thSeptember, 2012, when the Petitioners were arrested and that after about more than five years, such an application for sending the property for forensic examination could not have been entertained by the trial Court.

The documents or material collected during investigation can be permitted to be produced during the course of trial, even if it was not submitted along with the charge sheet. In the present case, in the application, it has been stated by the investigating officer that although the said property i.e. mobile phones and memory card were seized during investigation, due to inadvertence of the then investigating officer, the same could not be sent for forensic analysis. In the present case, it cannot be said that the trial Court committed an error by allowing the application. The investigating officer/agency, has the power at any stage of trial, to place before the Court such material that would assist the investigating agency to put forward its case. In this situation, the argument of prejudice would not come to the rescue of the Petitioners.

The facts of the present case do show that, while the FIR was registered on 14th September, 2012, the trial has only just begun. The said application was moved after more than five years on 9th January, 2018, as a result of which, now the said mobile phones and memory card will be sent for forensic examination to the laboratory. The pendency of trial for a long period of time and delay in its disposal is certainly causing prejudice to the Petitioners. It is directed that the concerned Forensic Laboratory shall submit report pertaining to the said mobile phones and memory card within six weeks to the trial Court from the date the said property is received in pursuance of the impugned order. It is directed that the trial Court shall complete the trial and pass its judgment within a period of eight months. Petition dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved