Deepak Vaze Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Deepak Vaze vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 19, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1040432

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1040432
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Mar 19, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Deepak Vaze

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....gupta, panel lawyer for the respondent/state. heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. the applicant has challenged the order dated 28.1.2012 passed by the learned j.m.f.c.(shri c.k.barpete).waraseoni in criminal case no.31/2008. the facts of the case relating to the present revision are that a trial for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467 and 468 of ipc was prosecuted against the applicant before the trial court and on 28.1.2012 the case was fixed for the judgment. the learned j.m.f.c.found some discrepancies in the various policies and therefore, he directed the s.h.o.waraseoni to further investigate the matter on five various points by the impugned order. after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that case was fixed for the judgment and therefore, if the prosecution failed to prove anything against the applicant the, it was for the applicant to get the advantage of such discrepancies. nobody have any right of patching in the evidence of the prosecution. the concerned magistrate is required to act as a judge, not as a prosecutor. it is strange that no application was filed from the side of the prosecution to correct the evidence. it is also pertinent to note that the learned j.m.f.c.does not possess the power under section 482 of cr.p.c.according to the provision of section 173(8) of the cr.p.c., if any investigation officer gets any supplementary evidence then, supplementary evidence can be produced before the trial court under section 173(8) of the cr.p.c.after filing of the main charge sheet. but such type of supplementary evidence cannot be directed by the court below itself. under such circumstances, the order dated 28.1.2012 passed by the learned j.m.f.c.appears to be beyond his jurisdiction and patently wrong in eye of law. under such circumstances, an interference is required from the side of this court by way of the.....

Full Judgment

Criminal Revision No.369/2012 19.03.2013 Shri Pradeep Naveriya, counsel with Ms.Versha Kothari, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally.

The applicant has challenged the order dated 28.1.2012 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.(Shri C.K.Barpete).Waraseoni in criminal case No.31/2008.

The facts of the case relating to the present revision are that a trial for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC was prosecuted against the applicant before the trial Court and on 28.1.2012 the case was fixed for the judgment.

The learned J.M.F.C.found some discrepancies in the various policies and therefore, he directed the S.H.O.Waraseoni to further investigate the matter on five various points by the impugned order.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that case was fixed for the judgment and therefore, if the prosecution failed to prove anything against the applicant the, it was for the applicant to get the advantage of such discrepancies.

Nobody have any right of patching in the evidence of the prosecution.

The concerned Magistrate is required to act as a Judge, not as a Prosecutor.

It is strange that no application was filed from the side of the prosecution to correct the evidence.

It is also pertinent to note that the learned J.M.F.C.does not possess the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.According to the Provision of Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., if any investigation officer gets any supplementary evidence then, supplementary evidence can be produced before the trial Court under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.after filing of the main charge sheet.

But such type of supplementary evidence cannot be directed by the Court below itself.

Under such circumstances, the order dated 28.1.2012 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.appears to be beyond his jurisdiction and patently wrong in eye of law.

Under such circumstances, an interference is required from the side of this Court by way of the present revision.

Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby allowed.

The order dated 28.1.2012 is also set aside.

The learned J.M.F.C.is directed to proceed with the case and pass a judgment according to the provision of law.

It is also directed that Shri C.K.Barpete had opened his mind by passing the order dated 28.1.2012 and therefore, if he is continuous as J.M.F.C.Waraseoni then, he shall apply before the C.J.M.concerned and case may be transferred to the another J.M.F.C.Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for infructuous and compliance.

(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Deepak Vaze vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education