The revision petitioner herein is the defacto complainant, examined as PW3 in CC. No.199/05 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala. Trial went on, without the State or the accused raising any grievance, till the stage of defence evidence. After the examination the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case made two applications. One was to reopen the evidence, for examining the 18th witness cited by the prosecution, whose presence could not be procured at the right stage. 2. The other application filed as CMP No. 7891/13 was to receive additional evidence. Pending investigation the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies had conducted an enquiry against the second accused in the case and had submitted report. This was not considered or looked into by the investigating officer, because it was purely departmental. The Investigating Officer went on with the Investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure and collected all evidence possible, and he produced all legally acceptable and admissible evidence for the purpose of trial. When everything was closed, the Assistant Public Prosecutor came with an application with prayer to examine the said Assistant Registrar, and to mark the report of enquiry submitted by him to the higher authority. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application by order dated 27.1.2014. Now, the defacto complainant has come up with this revision, challenging the legality of the said order.
3. On hearing both sides, I find that the application filed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was rightly rejected by the trial court. The report of enquiry submitted by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies will have nothing to do with the investigation, or the facts to be proved during trial. It was purely departmental in nature, and such an enquiry proceeded as part of the normal procedure under the Co- operative Societies Act and the Rules. If such report is ought to be marked and the Officer who made such report is ought to be examined as additional witness when the whole evidence is over, there is no doubt at all that it will cause serious prejudice to the accused. It is interesting to note that State is not aggrieved by the said order. There is no reason why the State did not challenge the said order in revision or otherwise. I fail to understand what exactly is the grievance of the defacto complainant. Anyway, such a report cannot be admitted as additional evidence in the prosecution which proceeds otherwise on the basis of evidence or materials collected under the Code of Criminal Procedure. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, and I find that the application of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was rightly disallowed by the trial court.
In the result this revision petition is dismissed.
sab P.UBAID, JUDGE