One punchnama in multiple cases
Pranay Aggarwal
(Querist) 11 January 2015
This query is : Resolved
I have a matter where seizure punchnama was drawn in 1st case. Mainly computers & printer to create forged documents.
Subsequently the accused was arrested in another case of similar nature.
Investigating Offer of 2nd case did not get any seizure from the accused in respect to computers & printers.
Accused in his statement to the police stated that all the articles have been seized in the 1st case.
Investigating Offer of the 2nd case uses the (uncertified true copy )Xerox copy punchname of the 1st case in his charge sheet.
Accused is Charged Framed in both the case.
Both the cases are been heard by the same Judge.
My Question:
1)Can the prosecution read the punchnama from the 1st case into the 2nd case.
2)Can the Hob’ble Judge allow the same?
3)Any citation where it can be said that Xerox copy of punchnama from 1st case cannot be used in the 2nd case.
4)Can the Punch of the 1st case be examined in the 2nd case.
Pranay10000@yahoo.com
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 11 January 2015
1. No
2. No
3.citations are not supllied here
4. yes but not of much help.
Guest
(Expert) 11 January 2015
In the whole of your description, you have failed to provide very crucial information, whether the xerox copy of the first panchnama has been certified to be true from the I.O. of the fist case or not. if that is there the position would differ than what may have been supposed to be.
Secondly, you have also not mentioned, in the absence of the panchnama in the 2nd case, what are the remarks of the I.O. of the second case, if he has not prepared a panchnama of his own. That point is also important to be mentioned by you.
Thirdly, in the absence of all those gadgets/ equipments, which were used and have already been siezed, no fresh panchnama could be possible, as that already exists.
Pranay Aggarwal
(Querist) 11 January 2015
Respected Mr. Dhingra,
Xerox copy of Punchnama are NOT certified true copy.
IO of 2nd case could not seize the computer & scanner from the accused. He managed to get other seizure. But in absence of computer & printer his case cannot be proved.
I do agree that no fresh gadget could be seized by IO of 2nd case BUT
What does the law says: Can the prosecution call the Punch in both the cases to be examined without he actually being part of investigation in the 2nd case.
Guest
(Expert) 11 January 2015
Dear Author ,Mr P.S.Dhingra is a Very Senior Advocate and Senior expert of this Forum.You are here by Advised to Address with Proper Respect.
Pranay Aggarwal
(Querist) 11 January 2015
Respected Mr. Rajkumar,
Please accept my sincere apology for the same.
Respected Mr. Dhingra,
I am very sorry if I might have hurt you with my title address,
I have made the modification.
Pranay
Guest
(Expert) 11 January 2015
Dear Mr.Pranay Agarwal your apology is accepted With appreciation.Please waite for his reply.Thanks.
Guest
(Expert) 11 January 2015
Mr. Pranay,
Xerox copy, if not certified to be true, cannot be relied upon. However, with the request of the prosecution the original panchnama can be called for to verify the truth or even the first case can be linked to be heard in conjunction to find the truth. But all that depends upon the wisdom and discretion of the judge of the cases. In the cases of similar nature and with same articles of the panchnama, there is no hard and fast rule that second panchnama should be a must, which is not possible, when already made part of earlier panchnama. Even if the judge be not the same, the prosecution can request for allocation of the case for simultanous hearing to the same judge in whose court the first case is being tried.
Please be aware, soft copies of the documents stored in the seized equipments and gadgets are more relevant and confirmed evidence, rather than the equipments/ gadgets, which are merely the medium used to store the documents of evidence being used. Rest depends upon the description in the second charge sheet about the reason for non-seizure and how justified.
Pranay Aggarwal
(Querist) 11 January 2015
Respected Mr. Dhingra,
Thank you for all your help.
Now it is clear that since both the matters are with same Judge and are having same dates it would be very much possible for the prosecution to verify the original punchnama from the 1st case.
It is true that identity of the equipment's could be established by this mean.
BUT
Since IO from 2nd case has not taken on record CA report (for contents in the equipment) from the 1st case into his chargesheet would it be possible for the prosecution to read / take the same from the 1st case or would it not be possible for prosecution to take CA report from 1st case.
Pranay Aggarwal
(Querist) 11 January 2015
Respected Mr. Rajkumar,
I have just read your profile and understood that you visit Mumbai once in 15 days time.
I would like to meet you in Mumbai if possible in order to discuss Cyber Laws that could be applied in the above matter.
I need to read / evaluate / understand what discrepancy can be founded in the CA report for the contents of the Hard Disk seized during investigation.
My mobile number is 989 217 4400.
Pranay
Guest
(Expert) 11 January 2015
Thank You and in First Week of February I would be there for my work and You could contact me if required.My Numbers are in Profile It Self and if any thing Urgent you could mail me if you require.
Pranay Aggarwal
(Querist) 11 January 2015
Respected Mr. Rajkumar,
I will send you a mail in 1st week of February to confirm before calling you.
Hope this would be Ok.
Pranay
Guest
(Expert) 11 January 2015
It is Fine and Thank You Please.
Guest
(Expert) 11 January 2015
Mr. Pranay,
Possibility cannot be overruled.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 12 January 2015
Well advised by senior expert PS Dhingra ji, agree to it.
Pranay Aggarwal
(Querist) 01 February 2015
Respected Sir,
In a case during appeal at Bombay High Court on 22 May 2010. Hon'ble Justice Shri B. R. Gavai in Apeal/20/2002 had ruled that any Punch witness who has been used in more than 4 or 5 occasion cannot be said to carry any value.
I am unable to get this judgment from Bombay High Court Site.
Can some one please help me get this Judgment or a similar from SC.
Regards,
Pranay
