IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 11of 2004. Date of decision: 7.9. 2010 Gian Prakash ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P ..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Anup Chitkara, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The impugned order dated 7.6.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Shimla reads as follows:- “7.6.2003.Present: Shri R.S.Parmar, Ld. APP for the State. Complainant not present. Statement of complainant was recorded on oath on 2.5.2003 whereby he has shown his dis-satisfaction as regard the investigation conducted by the police in the present case. I have gone through he opinion of the prosecution dated 2.7.2002 placed on the file 2 alongwith cancellation report prepared by the police. After carefully going through the case file and the Zimini orders and the opinion of the prosecution in detailed, I am satisfied with the cancellation report prepared by the police and the same is accordingly accepted. The police file with the copy of this order be sent to the concerned SHO, through S.P.Shimla and court papers be consigned to the record room. Announced in the open Court this 7th June, 2003. JMIC, Court No.2, Shimla.” 2. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the aforesaid order on the ground that reasonable opportunity was not given to him to oppose the cancellation report. On perusal of the record of the learned Trial Court, I find that notice of the cancellation report was given to the complainant-petitioner on 2.5.2003. The complainant-petitioner appeared in the Court and the only statement he made before the Court was that he was not satisfied with the investigation carried out by the police. He did not give the reasons why he was not satisfied. Any person whose complaint is being cancelled by the police would obviously not be satisfied by the action of the police. However, merely stating that the complainant is not satisfied is no justification for not 3 accepting the cancellation report and some reasons either orally or in writing should have been placed on record by the petitioner in support of his submission that the cancellation report should not be accepted. This has not been done. 3. Having held so, I find that neither the cancellation report nor the opinion of the prosecution is on the file of the learned Trial Court. Vide order dated 30.6.2010, I had asked the learned District Judge, Shimla to conduct an inquiry into the matter and find out why the documents are not on record. The learned District Judge, Shimla has conducted an inquiry and according to him, the records, after the cancellation report was accepted, were sent back to the police. Copies of the said records have also been sent to this Court alongwith the report. 4. I am of the considered view that in any case where a cancellation report is accepted by the Magistrate concerned/Special Judge, a copy of the FIR, a copy of the cancellation report and a copy of the opinion given by the concerned learned Public Prosecutor/learned Assistant Public Prosecutor must be retained on the file of the Court. If this is not done, it would not be possible for any superior court to find out, 4 what were the reasons which weighed with trial court accepting for cancellation report because in most cases like in the present case, all that is stated by the Magistrate in the final order is that he has accepted the reasons given in the cancellation report and the opinion of the concerned Public Prosecutor/Assistant Public Prosecutor. In fact, in cases where the cancellation is contested then the record, if any, relating to the contest and the copies of the documents relied upon by the complainant in support of his claim contesting the cancellation report and copies of the documents which the Court relies upon to accept the cancellation report should also be kept in the Court file. 5. The Registry is directed to circulate this judgment to all Magistrates/Special Judges in the State so as to ensure that in future, the records are maintained properly and all relevant documents are available on the Court file. 6. The Revision Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. September 7, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge