By means of the present petition under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order impugned dated 17.4.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur in Criminal Case No. 98 of 2008 arising out of case crime no. 537 of 2004 P.S. Khairabad, District Sitapur, whereby the application moved under section 207 Cr.P.C. has been rejected holding that before committal of case there is no provision for inspection by to accused of the car in question.
Petitioners are accused persons in Criminal Misc. Case No. 537 of 2004, under Sections 302,307 I.P.C., P.S. Khairabad (State Vs. Udai Raj Singh and others). They moved application under section 207 Cr.P.C. before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur praying therein that they may be allowed to inspect the Maruti car which have marks of firing and presently in supurdagi (interim Custody) of deceased's wife under the order of the learned Magistrate dated 24.3.2005 with conditions that as and when the car is required, the same shall be produced in court by her on its own expenditure and during pendency of the case she shall neither sale out nor transfer the car to anyone nor change the shape of the car. The possibility can not be ruled out that there might be difference in between exact position marks on the car and documents furnished in this regard. So, they may be permitted to inspect the car in question before committal of case.
The learned Magistrate after hearing the submissions rejected the application moved under section 207 Cr.P.C by impugned order holding therein that there is no provision under Section 207 Cr.P.C. for inspection of car in question by the accused persons before committal of case. It is a question of evidence and if needed by the trial court the car may be produced by the prosecution.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner challenged the same in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 25.05.2007 stayed the further proceedings of the court below. Since then the proceedings of the case are held up.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Dr. L. P. Mishra, Senior Advocated assisted by Shri Hari Om Bajpai,and learned A.G.A.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have right to get the inspection of car before committal of case in view of provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C. If inspection is denied shall cause serious prejudice to the accused and the same shall defeat the object of fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
On the contrary learned A.G.A. submits that while interpreting the provisions under statute nothing could be added or subtracted from the statutory provision. The provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. are simple, clear and unambiguous. Therefore, the request made by the accused-petitioners for inspect of the car is misconceived and by this petition the petitioners succeed in achieving the goal of protracting the trial for considerable long time. This Court after exercising jurisdiction conferred under section 482/483 Cr.P.C. may not only dismiss this petition but also direct that trial should be concluded within a reasonable period as this court thinks fit.
Section 207 Cr.P.C. is extracted herein below:----
"207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents. In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:-
(i) the police report;
(ii) the first information report recorded under section 154;
(iii) the statements recorded under sub- section (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub- section (6) of section 173;
(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164;
(v)any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub- section (5) of section 173:
Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused:
Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court."
The perusal of Section 207 Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that what should be supplied to the accused before committal of case to the court of Session in a case instituted on police report. This section requires to furnish a copy of police report, first information report recorded under Section 154, the statements recorded under Sub-section (3) of Section 161 Cr.P.C. of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under Section 164 and any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under Sub-Section (5) of Section 173.
The provision of inspection is given in second proviso to section 207, which deals with power of Magistrate for allowing inspection. It categorically provides that If the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall allow the accused or his pleader in court to inspect it. Therefore, Section 207 restricts the right of the accused to the extent of furnishing copies of documents and papers contained in Section 207 and not beyond that, the inspection of document may be permitted and not of material which does not fall within the definition of document.
Word "Document" has not been defined under Code of Criminal Procedure. The definition of 'document' is given in Indian Evidence Act as well as in Indian Penal Code. The definition of document given in section 3 Evidence Act is reproduced herein below:
"Section 3. Interpretation clause "Document" --"Document" means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter."
The definition of document given in section section 29 in IPC is quoted herein below;
Section 29. "Document"
29. "Document".--The word "document" denotes any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, as evidence of that matter.
Explanation 1.--It is immaterial by what means or upon what substance the letters, figures or marks are formed, or whether the evidence is intended for, or may be used in, a Court of Justice, or not.
Illustrations A writing expressing the terms of a contract, which may be used as evidence of the contract, is a document.
A cheque upon a banker is a document.
A power-of-attorney is a document.
A map or plan which is intended to be used or which may be used as evidence, is a document.
A writing containing directions or instructions is a document.
Explanation 2.--Whatever is expressed by means of letters, figures or marks as explained by mercantile or other usage, shall be deemed to be expressed by such letters, figures or marks within the meaning of this section, although the same may not be actually expressed.
Illustration A writes his name on the back of a bill of exchange payable to his order. The meaning of the endorsement, as explained by mercantile usage, is that the bill is to be paid to the holder. The endorsement is a document, and must be construed in the same manner as if the words"pay to the holder" or words to that effect had been written over the signature."
The definition in Evidence Act and in Penal Code makes it abundantly clear that document means any matter expressed or described upon any such substance by means of letter and figure or marked or by more than one of those means which intent to be used or which may be used for the purpose of recording that matter. Therefore the matter expressed or described upon the substance may be a document but not that substance over which the matter is expressed or described. It is not denied that photographs of car were taken and supplied to the accused petitioners.
In view of the above, this Court is of the firm view that move of petitioners was intended to prolong the proceedings initiated against them and they have upto some extent succeeded therein. As such this application is misconceived one and the same has rightly been rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order impugned.
At this stage no interference is warranted by this Court in the impugned order. The petition sans merits and is liable to be dismissed.
While dismissing this petition this Court with object to secure the ends of justice issue following directions:-
That if the case has not yet been committed to the court of Session be commit by the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order.
If the case has already been committed to the Court of Session, the learned Sessions Judge or any other Court where trial is pending, shall expedite the hearing of trial by strictly observing the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. and to proceed with the case on day to day basis.
The trial Court shall make an endeavor to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.
It is also made clear that learned Magistrate or the trial court, as the case may be, shall not grant any frivolous adjournments to the accused petitioners. If the accused persons try to prolong the proceedings by seeking unnecessary adjournments, the coercive steps may be adopted against them including cancellation of bail, if required.
The Office shall ensure that the copy of this order be communicated to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sitapur and Sessions Judge Sitapur positively within a period of 10 days from today. The learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge as the case may be, shall comply with the order in letter and spirit.
The Senior Registrar of the Court shall ensure the compliance of this order.
In view of the above this petition is dismissed with aforesaid directions.
Dated:- 15.12. 2014 GSY