The person who registers a crime should not investigate the case to ensure a fair trial and prevent prejudice.

1. Invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under S.397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') sole accused / applicant Roop Lal Halba has preferred this revision questioning the impugned judgment whereby his conviction for offence under S.304 - A of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth 'IPC') stands affirmed by appellate court as awarded by trial Magistrate.

2. The core facts leading to the prosecution and conviction of the applicant as unfolded by the prosecution are as under: -
2.1 On 23.11.1994 at 4.30 p.m. at main road Chadenibhatha Rajhara, applicant Rooplal while driving the Truck bearing registration No. A.E.K. - 8012 rashly and negligently dashed the Scooter bearing registration No. C.E.R. - 7494 driven by Gulshan Kumar, as a result of which, Gulshan Kumar was thrown away and later on he was hospitalized. It is further case of the prosecution that Mr. R.K. Sharma (PW 11), Station House Officer of the police Station Rajhara was present at the place of incident as he was on duty and noticed the incident and reduced the same into writing in shape of Dehati Nalishi (Ext. P7) and First Information Report was also registered by him vide Ext. P8. Later on, upon death of Gulshan Kumar, his post - mortem was conducted; and the seizure memo as well as spot Map (Ext. P12) was prepared by Mr. R.K. Sharma (PW 11), Station House Officer, he also recorded statement of the witnesses under S.161 of the CrPC and filed charge - sheet against the applicant / accused for the offence under S.304 - A of the Indian Penal Code .
2.2 In order to establish the charge under S.304 - A of the IPC against the present applicant, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents whereas the applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge and decided to enter into the trial.

3. The trial Magistrate, upon oral and documentary evidence available on record, found that the applicant guilty for offence under S.304 - A, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for three months.

4. The applicant went into appeal. The appellate court did not interfere with the conviction of the applicant as well as quantum of sentence and dismissed the appeal. Against which, this present revision, as indicated above, has been filed.

5. Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the applicant is absolutely illegal. Elaborating his submissions, Mr. Dhurandhar would further submit that Mr. R.K. Sharma (PW 11) - Station House Officer, who registered the crime, has investigated the entire matter causing serious prejudice to the trial, and as such, the trial stands vitiated on the said serious infirmity in the investigation, and therefore, the conviction followed by sentence awarded to the applicant deserves to be set aside.

6. Opposing the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Shri Arvind Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the State / non - applicant would submit that investigation by Mr. R.K. Sharma (PW 11) - Station House Officer would not vitiate the trial as no prejudice has been caused to the applicant on account of investigation made by Mr. Sharma, as such, the revision deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records of both the courts below with utmost circumspection.

8. The short question which falls