JAGBLR WALIA versus DELHI ADMINLSTRATION

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 466 · Decided: 26-11-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
JAGBlR WALIA 
v. 
DELHI ADMINlSTRA TION 
NOVEMBER 26, 1997 
[G.T. NANA VAT! AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956-Section 9-Investigation-
FIR recorded on the basis ofmaterial collected and verified by Assistant 
Comrnissioner of Police-Held, the investigation was not contrary to the 
provisions of the Act. 
Practice and Procedure-Appeal-Permission to place additional 
evidence on record-Grant/Rejection of 
D 
The appellant, an accused convicted for the offence punishable under 
Section. 9 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956, having 
unsuccessfully challenged his conviction before the Sessions Court and the 
High Court, preferred the present appeal. 
On .behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the whole investigation 
E was illegal as the investigation was done by a Sub-inspector of Police and 
not by th¢ Assistant Commissioner of Police appointed for that purpose. The 
appellant also sought to place certain new material on record in furtherance 
of his contention. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
F 
HELD : 1. It cannot be said that the investigation made in this case was 
contrary to the provisions of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act. 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 
G witnesses and also verified the statement of the complainant. It was on the 
basis of the materail thus collected and verified by the Assistant 
Commissioner of Police that the FIR was recorded and further investigation 
was carried on. 1467-F) 
H 
2;· It will not be proper to condemn the prosecution witnesses by now 
. 
466 
< 
JAG BIR WALIA v. DELHI ADMINISTRATION (NANA YA Tl. .I.] 467 
taking additional evidence, in respect of which they did not have any A 
opportunity to controvert. Besides, the copies of the material sought to be 
produced are not even certified copies. 1463-A-B) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 243 
of 1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.86 of the Delhi High Court 
in Crl.R.No.223 of 1986. 
P.P.Malhotra, B.B.Sawheny, Vineet Malhotra, Shailendra Sharma and 
Ms. Sandhya Goswami for the Appellant. 
K.C. Kaushik for D.S.Mehra for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B· 
c 
NANA VA TI, J. The appellant has been convicted for the offence 
punishable under Section 9 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act. He D 
challenged his conviction by filing an appeal before the Sessions Court, 
which was dismissed. He then preferred an appeal to the High Court, which 
was also dismissed. 
In 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 E 
raised by the appellant was that, in this case, the investigation was done by 
a Sub-Inspector 0f 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. Apart from the fact that the 
contention is not sound in law, it is factully 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 
F 
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 G 
that the FIR was recorded and further investigation was carried on. Therefore, 
it cannot be said that 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. 
The appellant has also filed an application to enlarge the scope of the H 
468 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 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 material. They are not certified copies and, therefore, we have 
not ta

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.