In a first-of-its kind case,a public prosecutor and an advocate will soon be seen defending themselves against the charges of acting in cahoots despite being on opposing sides to get an innocent man jailed,while the real accused testifies as a prosecution witness during the trial. On the direction of the Delhi High Court,an FIR has been lodged against the prosecutor,the advocate and the investigating officer at the Subzi Mandi police station on charges of cheating,impersonation,false implication,perjury and acting fraudulently in the court. Taking a serious view of the accusations levelled by the man,who was convicted on a mistaken identity after his own lawyer allegedly connived with the prosecutor to get him convicted,Justice S N Dhingra has ordered a comprehensive probe into the episode and demanded a police report. The convict,one Vinod,had filed a revision petition before Justice Dhingra,alleging that he had been wrongly sentenced to a year-long jail term by the trial court for causing death by rash and negligent driving,even though he had not been driving the offending vehicle. In his petition filed through advocate Dr Naipal Singh,Vinod said the real accused,Ram Kumar,had testified against him pretending to be his employer V K Gupta. According to the petition,Vinods counsel never cross-examined Ram Kumar on his identity,and the prosecutor did not pay heed to his pleas either. Even as he sought to produce the real V K Gupta to establish that he was being framed,the prosecutor and his counsel prompted the court to close the evidence of the witnesses. The magisterial court convicted Vinod,and the sessions court also dismissed his appeal early this year. Vinod then approached the High Court and said a collusion between the prosecutor and his counsel to protect the real accused led to his conviction. If true,this seems to be a serious matter of impersonation involving an advocate and additional public prosecutor. Although it is stated that Ram Kumar is dead,I consider action should be taken against the said advocate,the investigating officer and others who colluded in this act of impersonation. Action can be taken only when the real V K Gupta lodges a report. Let Gupta first lodge an FIR. in respect of impersonation and fraud played upon the court, Justice Dhingra had said in his order. The court also asked Gupta to lodge a complaint in the trial court so that a complaint could be lodged in the Bar Council of Delhi as well as the Bar Council of India with respect to the professional misconduct of the advocate and. cancellation of his licence. Gupta then approached the Subzi Mandi police station and an FIR was lodged. Justice Dhingra ordered the SHO of the Subzi Mandi police station to complete the investigation in one week and submit the report to the court on Monday.
