Judgment:
Guman Mal Lodha, J.
1. A short point but of surest nature has come to limelight after the arguments were heard on 16th October, 1986 and Mr. Dhankar was required to produce the original copy of the challan given to his client. The short point is that the name of Bhanwar Singh was never included in the charge sheet. At serial No. 6 the name is Bharat Singh. This Bharat Singh was not produced by the prosecution. Instead of Bharat Singh, the prosecution now wants to produce Bhanwar Singh. The efforts to produce Bhanwar Singh is based on an interpolation in the original challan. The interpolation is obvious by naked eye. The interpolation is further confirmed by the comparison of the orignal challan with the copy given to Panjwani. The copy does not have any sort of semblance or mention Bhanwar Singh before or after serial No. 6 of the witnesses calender in the charge sheet, it is surprising and shocking how this interpolation has been done in challan after it was filed in the court.
2. It is still more surprising because the effort to call this witness Bhanwar Singh has started only when the prosecution realised that Bharat Singh cannot be produced or is not useful for them.
3. Even then I asked the learned Public Prosecutor to show from the record if Bhanwar Singh's name is mentioned in any of the evidence or document by which it can be shown that Bhanwar Singh is a material witness so that the court may in a given case call a material witness even though his name is not mentioned. The learned Public Prosecutor very fairly and frankly submitted that none of the papers filed as challan or statement or document or even otherwise the statement recorded in the trial court the name of Bhanwar Singh finds place. If that is introduction interpolation & addition of the name of Bhanwar Singh without there being any basic relevance in the case is like Collambus or Vaskodegama's discoveries and those too are meant for prolonging the case and for the purpose of adding or for the purpose of creating new evidence, presumably because the prosecution may realise weakness, such an effort cannot be allowed by this court and is to be condemned and deprecated.
4. I am of the opinion that this is one of those cases where the prosecution has interpolated the name and this interpolation has been done in the record of the court.
5. I therefore feel that the learned court concerned should take exemplary action for the purposes of ensuring the sacredness, piousness, safety of the record of the court and so that no unscrupulous persons are allowed to make interpolation like the one which has been done in the present case by addition of the name of Bhanwar Singh before Bharat Singh.
6. It is surprising that inspite of all this the lower court has not taken serious objection to it and the Additional Sessions Judge Jaipur has rejected the revision application on the ground that the name of Bhanwar Singh before Bharat Singh, though Bhanwar Singh was not mentioned in summon anywhere earlier is on account of some lapse, omission and is not a case of interpolation.
7. I am also of the view that when the witness was not a material witness there was no occasion or point in summoning him and prolonging the case.
8. Consequently, the application is accepted.
9. The order for calling Bhanwar Singh as a witness in this case is quashed.
10. It is further directed that the learned Magistrate would make an enquiry into the circumstances how the name of Bhanwar Singh was interpolated and who was responsible for it. If the responsibility is fixed, then proper legal action should be taken by the Magistrate concerned so that such recurrence cannot take place in future.
11. With the above observations, the order is quashed and the application is accepted.