Crl. Misc. No. M-20547 of 2009 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-20547 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 15,2011 Shiv Ram ............................................................... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ................................................... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Rajbir Shehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, DAG, Haryana. ... RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of the order dated 4.8.2009 (Annexure P2) whereby application of the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. Mr. Rajbir Shehrawat, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that an application for summoning R.R.Banswal, Inquiry Officer, along with inquiry report against Roop Ram, Assistant/Cashier, has been filed. As per the inquiry report Roop Ram was having two sets of keys of the chest in which government money was lying. He never handed over the Crl. Misc. No. M-20547 of 2009 (O&M) [ 2 ] second set of keys to the Controlling Officer, therefore, his involvement in the theft case cannot straightway be denied. The inquiry report is Ex.DW1/A. The trial Court did not give any weight to this inquiry report on the ground that the Inquiry Officer R.R.Banswal had not stepped into the witness box to support the case of the accused. As such, the report Ex.DW1/A was of no help to the accused. Summoning of R.R.Banswal in this background was important for the applicant. His application has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, on the ground that on an earlier occasion he had four opportunities to summon this witness R.R.Banswal. Moreover, the inquiry report is already on the case file and there was no occasion to summon R.R.Banswal as a witness to prove the inquiry report. The inquiry report Ex.DW1/A is on the record and as per Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act,1972 a certified copy of the inquiry report is presumed to be a genuine document. The certified copy of the inquiry report is already on the case file and in the opinion of the Court the summoning of R.R.Banswal was not necessary to prove this inquiry report. The criminal miscellaneous is dismissed with the above observations. 15.2.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE