Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 9
SC 515/2024
STATE Vs. SUMITRA
FIR No. 389/2020
PS (Anand Parbat)
10.07.2026
Present: Sh. Deepak Kumar Jha, Ld. Addl. PP for the
State.
Sh. Hitanshu Uttreja, Assistant Manager (Legal) of
complainant company.
HC Rohit Kumar in person.
On the last date of hearing, the application filed by the
investigating agency to condone the delay in filing the chargesheet
was disposed off and it was observed that the original documents
have not been filed by the investigating agency so far. It was
observed that the statements of witnesses recorded have also not
been filed in original with the report.
Present application was filed on behalf of complainant
company seeking directions from the Court for further
investigations. Notice was issued to SHO to file the reply through
the Office of DCP concern.
Reply is filed by IO forwarded by SHO. The same is
not forwarded by the Office of the DCP. It is stated by the IO that
the notice of the Court was received in which it was not mentioned
that the reply is to be forwarded by the Office of DCP. Perusal of
the notice sent to SHO reveals that at the top, it is written ‘through
-- 1 of 3 --
..2..
office of DCP concerned’. There is endorsement on the notice that
the notice is served upon SHO Anand Parbat through Office of DCP.
Reply filed is perused and the contention of the SHO is
that investigations have been carried out in a very professional
manner and on merits. It is further submitted that if the petition is
allowed no new fact would come as the investigation is complete in
all respect and further investigations in the case will delay in justice.
The inspection report, load report and seizure memo
prepared by the inspecting team have not been filed in original
before the court till date and in the absence of original documents,
trial cannot proceed. The photocopy of the reports made part of the
chargesheet are to be considered for secondary evidence then the
conditions to lead the secondary evidence are to be fulfilled and
existence of original documents and their loss is to be established.
There is no clue about the loss of original reports in the final report
as well as in the reply filed today.
The attention of the court is drawn towards the
statement of Deepak by whom the inspection proceedings were
photographed/videographed. It is the contention of the complainant
that the statement of witness has not been recorded properly. The
certificate issued by Sanjeev Kumar under Section 65 B of Evidence
Act is also not found complying with the legal provisions.
The court has come across numerous matters where
some shortcomings in the investigations are observed by the Court
and thereafter the application to grant permission to investigate the
-- 2 of 3 --
..3..
matter further are being filed either by the police or on behalf of
complainant company.
The office of Ld. Commissioner of Police, Delhi has
issued a Standing order 444/2016 issuing the instructions for
investigations of the matters. If the said instructions are duly
complied then there would no occasion to approach the court to
grant permission to conduct the further investigation to cure the
shortcomings in the investigations. The reports submitted before the
court suggest that the final report is forwarded by ACPs concern
without ensuring the investigations under their supervision and
without applying mind. It also appears that the DCP who has to
ensure the supervision/monitoring of the investigations is having no
time and intentions to comply the instructions of aforesaid order.
The facts are brought to the knowledge of office of Ld.
Commissioner of Police, Delhi to take substantive steps towards
compliance of standing order 444/2016 during the investigations on
criminal complaints and to furnish the names of competent police
officials to whom directions may be given to investigate the matter
further as well the names of competent police officials by whom the
further investigations are to supervised and monitored.
Put up on 31.08.2026 awaiting the report and
submissions on the application.
(Sunil Chaudhary)
Special Judge, Electricity-02,
Central/THC/Delhi/10.07.2026
-- 3 of 3 --