http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: JAGBIR WALIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DELHI ADMINISTRATION

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/11/1997

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, B.N. KIRPAL

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present;                Hon’ble 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. K.C. Kaushik, Adv. for D.S.Mehra, Adv. for the Respondent                       J U D G M E N T      The following of the Court was delivered: NANAVATI, J.      The  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.      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  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. Apart 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.      The appellant  has also filed an application to enlarge

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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 material. They 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.      This appeal  is therefore, dismissed.  The appellant is directed to  surrender to  custody immediately  to serve out the remaining part of his sentence.