Despite it being discretionary with the Judge or a Magistrate seized of an inquiry or trial to exercise, primarily suo-motu or on the application of a party, his powers under Section 539-B Cr.P.C for local inspection provided “It is in his opinion necessary to view for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence given at such inquiry or trial”, yet in view of the fact that the system for criminal dispensation of justice being adversarial in its nature, after production of site plan of the crime scene as evidence, and prosecution and the defence being at liberty to produce the evidence they wish, coupled with the fact that a Judge or a Magistrate is also empowered under Section 540 Cr.P.C as aforesaid during the trial, the existence of some exceptional and extraordinary reasons justifying the resort to exercise of such power appears to be a sine qua none and the scope for exercise of power under Section 539-A Cr.P.C for local inspection becomes relatively narrow. However, exercise of power for the site inspection during an inquiry is envisaged differently.
After discussing the scope of Section 539-B Cr.P.C in the light of case law in detail, and while considering the facts and circumstances of instant case, it is observed that under Section 95 of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, in case of an occurrence of an accident in which a motor vehicle is involved, a mechanism in detail has been provided for the inspection of the vehicle by the authority concerned. The ground on the basis of which the petitioner has made the request for site inspection to the Court is that the road on which the accident had taken place is relatively narrow and a car could not have been driven thereon negligently or rashly, appears to be fictional and result of imagination, particularly when the place of occurrence is not as such disputed, therefore, in absence of any exceptional circumstances justifying the Court to make a resort to local inspection appears to be fanciful and without force, thus cannot be entertained under the law. Neither any impropriety nor any illegality while rejecting the request of the petitioner could have been shown in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. Resultantly, the orders impugned are upheld and this miscellaneous application is dismissed. Before parting with the order, it may be observed that in the case law cited by the learned counsel referred hereinabove, is outcome of laudable efforts for expounding the scope of provision of Section 539-B Cr.P.C made by their lordships but at the same time it does not advance the petitioner’s cause, hence, it requires no separate discussion.
Crl. Misc. No.7693-M/2020
Umar Farooq. Versus The State etc.
0 Comments