Walia Vs. Delhi Administration  INSC 866 (26 November 1997)
NANAVATI, B.N. KIRPAL
26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present;
Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati Hon'ble Mr.Justice B.N. Kirpal P.P. Malhotra, Sr.Adv.
B.B.Sawheny, Vineet Malhotra, Shailendra Sharma, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Advs.
with him for the appellant.
Adv. for D.S.Mehra, Adv. for the Respondent
following of the Court was delivered:
appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the
Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act. He challenged his conviction by filing an
appeal before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed. he then preferred and
appeal to the High Court, which was also dismissed.
this case, initially, this Court had issued notice only with respect to ground
No.7 raised in the Special Leave Petition. Therein the point that was raised by
the appellant was the, in this case, the investigation was done by a
Sub-Inspector of Police and not by an Assistant Commissioner of Police
appointed for that purpose and therefore the whole investigation was illegal
and on the basis of the material collected during such illegal investigation,
the appellant could not have been convicted.
from the fact that the contention is not sound in law, it is factually also
incorrect. The Sub-Inspector of Police after recording statement of the
complainant called the Assistant Commissioner of Police at the place of the
incident. The Assistant Commissioner after reaching there recorded statements
of other witnesses and also verified the statement of the complainant. It was
on the basis of the material thus collected and verified by the Assistant
Commissioner of Police that the FIR was recorded and further investigation was
carried on. Therefore, it cannot be said the the investigation made in this
case was contrary to the provisions of the Act. This appeal really deserves to
be dismissed on that ground alone.
appellant has also filed an application to enlarge the scope of the appeal and
to permit the appellant to place on record material in the shape of various FIRs
and other police records to show that the complainant and the investigating
officer are not creditworthy witnesses. In the application, the appellant had
only referred to such material and later on, he produced copies of such
are not certified copies and, therefore, we have not taken any notice of them.
Moreover, it will not be proper to condemn the prosecution witnesses by now
taking additional evidence, in respect of which they did not have any
opportunity to controvert. We, therefore, reject that application.
appeal is therefore, dismissed. The appellant is directed to surrender to
custody immediately to serve out the remaining part of his sentence.