Criminal Writ Petition No.1332 of 1990

25th September, 1997

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. M.I.P. GALERIA
Respondent Counsel: Mr. S. J. RAIRKAR

Cases Cited:
AIR 1985 SC 1664 [Para 8]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Heard Mr. Galeria, APP for the State and Mr. Rairkar for respondents.

2. Mr. Rairkar, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents-accused states that the respondent No.2 has died and the prosecution abates as against Respondent No.2.

3. This petition is filed by the State under Article 227 of the Constitution and under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the concurrent orders of the lower Courts rejecting the application (Exhibit 14) dated 5-10-87 made on behalf of the prosecution under Section 310 of Cr.P.C. requesting the trial court to inspect the movable Railway property being the subject matter of the criminal prosecution.

4. The respondents-accused were facing prosecution under Section 3(a) of the RP (UP) Act i.e. for unlawful possession of the railway property. The railway property which is the subject matter of the above prosecution in the Court of the JMFC (Railways), Pune in C.C.No.5040 of 1983 is situate at different places i.e. Lonavala, Byculla, Bombay and Kalyan. It is stated that the property is large in quantity and consists of railway steel angles, G.L. Pipes, frames, wire bundles, plywood sheets, sunmica sheets, grills, nylon rope bundles, PVC wires, trolly bench, asbestos sheets, Cement bags, rods, pipes, fencing poles, A.C.C. sheets, rubber insulating sheets, mirror frames, rubber plates, regulators, iron scissors, iron pots, iron hammers, iron frames, wooden bags, iron grills galvanised wire, aluminium wire, wooden chairs, tables, doors etc. The application seems to have been made under Section 310 of the Cr.P.C. In the said application it is stated that the property is situated at different places and as large quantity has been seized, it would not be possible for the prosecution to produce the Muddemal property before the Court and, therefore, the Court was requested to take inspection of the said property. The trial Court rejected this application holding that it was possible for the prosecuting machinery to bring all those materials before the Court at the time of giving evidence.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned JMFC rejecting the application on 18th May 1989, the State preferred Criminal Revision Application no.296 of 1989 which was also rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by his judgment and order dated 6th June 1990.

6. Mr. Galeria, learned APP cited Section 310 of Cr.P.C. and urged that the trial Court should have gone to take the inspection of the property involved in the case. In order to appreciate the arguments it would be relevant to quote Section 310 of Cr.P.C. which reads as under:

"310. Local Inspection.- (1) Any Judge or Magistrate may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, after due notice to the parties, visit and inspect any place in which an offence is alleged to have been committed, or any other place which it is in his opinion necessary to view for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence given at such inquiry or trial, and shall without unnecessary delay record a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection. (2) Such memorandum shall form part of the record of the case and if the prosecutor, complainant or accused or any other party to the case, so desires, a copy of the memorandum shall be furnished to him free of cost."

7. From reading of the Section 310 of Cr.P.C., it would be clear that the said provision empowers the Judicial Officer to take local inspection in order to be able to properly appreciate the evidence given at the time of the inquiry or trial. It is not disputed that the trial has not commenced. This is an enabling provision which empowers the Court to have local inspection of the property, particularly immoveable property, which cannot be brought before the Court and the object of the same is to enable the Court to appreciate properly the evidence led before it. The said provision cannot be used by the prosecuting agency for the purpose of proving its case. The property involved is moveable which can very well be brought before the Court. Secondly, the Court must feel the need to have inspection of the property in order to be able to appreciate the evidence properly. Here the prosecuting agency has moved in the matter against the trial court declining to have local inspection as if the duty was cast on the trial court to take local inspection when the application was made in that behalf by the prosecuting agency.

8. Mr. Rairkar contended that the prosecution may prove its case in various ways by leading the evidence of panchas and by producing samples of the property and/or applying for appointment of Court-Commissioner to report to the Court. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Keisam Kumar Singh Vs. State of Manipur reported in AIR 1985 SC 1664 wherein the Supreme Court has observed that normally, a court is not entitled to make a local inspection and even if such an inspection is made, it can never take the place of evidence or proof but is really meant for appreciating the position at the spot.

9. In my view the aforesaid provision cannot be invoked when the Court has not felt the necessity or desirability of having such local inspection which can be done only for the purpose of appreciating the evidence given before the Court. There is no duty cast on the Court to have local inspection simply because the prosecuting agency or one of the parties to the litigation makes an application to the Court and, therefore, there is no question of directing the lower Court to have local inspection in respect of the property which is the subject matter of the criminal trial. This is not to say that the trial Court should have no local inspection as and when it is felt necessary or desirable by the Court itself.

10. In that view of the matter this writ petition has got no substance and the same is liable to be rejected. Hence the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. As the trial has already delayed, the same is expedited and is directed to be completed as early as possible.

Petition dismissed.