Challenging and impugning the order dated 27.6.2006, passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Uthagamandalam, in S.C.No.1 of 2004, this criminal revision case is focussed.
2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision case would run thus:
The police laid the police report in terms of
Section 173 Cr.P.C. as against the accused for the offences under
Sections 332 and
307 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty, whereupon, after complying with the legal procedures, trial was commenced and the prosecution closed its side. At that stage, the accused filed a petition under
Section 294(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C. virtually to get the following three documents, admitted in evidence.
1. Certified copy of petition filed by the petitioner under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Nilgiris, in Crl.M.P.No.455 of 2000 on 27th September 2003 together with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on the said petition on 11.10.2000;
2. Certified copy of the order passed by the Honourable Sessions Judge of the Nilgiris, on 11.10.2000 in C.M.P.No.455 of 2000.
3. Certified copy of the offence report in number TNF 57/2000.
According to the petitioner, those documents are certified copies issued by the Court relating to the legal proceedings. The learned Public Prosecutor, in-charge of the case, objected to it, whereupon, the Court passed the order dismissing the petition on the sole ground that the Prosecutor objected for marking such documents.
3. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said order of the Sessions Judge, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the warp and woof of them would be to the effect that absolutely there is no rhyme or reason on the part of the Assistant Sessions Judge in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner; that those documents are certified copies of the legal proceedings and as such, as per the Indian Evidence Act, they are admissible in evidence.
4. Heard both sides.
5. At this juncture, I would like to reproduce here under
Section 294 of the Cr.P.C.
"294. No formal proof of certain documents (1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.
(2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.
(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed:
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.
6. It is ex facie and prima facie clear that when either of the parties to the criminal proceedings, if wants to file some document, they are at liberty to file such documents and call upon the other side either to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. It is open for the other side to either accept or deny the genuineness of the document. If it is denied by the opposite party, the party, who wants to rely upon it should resort to the normal procedure of marking the document. As such,
Section 294 Cr.P.C.is not the be- all and end-all of the right to adduce evidence before Court and either of the parties to criminal proceedings to put forth their documents before the Court, there are other modes of relying on their documents for being considered by the Court. De hos, the method contemplated under
Section 294 Cr.P.C. It is quite obvious and axiomatic that through the witnesses, either the prosecution or the defence could mark the documents. Even during cross-examination, documents could be marked by virtue of
Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this case, simply because the Public Prosecutor objected and did not signify his consent relating to the genuineness of the documents, the lower Court was not justified in dismissing that application. The lower Court should have allowed the documents to be filed in Court.
7. Now the question arises as to whether it open for the accused to put forth those documents as evidence, despite the objection emanating from the prosecution side.
8. It is a well settled proposition, based on the practice of criminal courts that the accused at the time of his examination under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. could file statements, along with such statement, the accused is entitled to enclose necessary documents, which are ex facie and prima facie reliable by the Court.
9. In this connection I would like to extract hereunder
Sections 74,75 and
76 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Section. 74 Public documents The following documents are public documents:
(1) documents forming the acts or records of the acts-
(i) of the sovereign authority
(ii)of official bodies and tribunals, and
(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive of any part of India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign country;
(2) public records kept in any State of private documents
75. Private documents All other documents are private.
76. Certified copies of public documents Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written, at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorised by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.
Explanation- Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorised to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this Section.
10. A cumulative reading of those provisions of the Indian Evidence Act would exemplify and demonstrate that if certified copies of a public documents are filed in Court, even without formal marking or proof, the criminal Court can take into account, at the request of either of the parties and the criminal Court at its judicial discretion could assign markings to them. Here, the three documents referred to supra are the certified copies issued by the Courts pertaining to legal proceedings and I am at a loss to understand as to what prompted, actuated, accentuated, propelled and impelled the learned Public Prosecution to object for such legally admissible documents.
11. Above all, these documents are the certified copies of the anticipatory bail application, which the accused filed before the Sessions Court along with the order of dismissal by the Sessions Court and also the offence report filed by the police. In my opinion, the learned Public Prosecutor could have refrained from objecting to such documents and he could have given his consent for formal marking. In the absence of such formal consent having been given by the Public Prosecutor, the Court could have very well observed that those certified copies could be relied on by the Court, as they are all certified copies issued by the Court relating to the Court proceedings. Hence, with this observation, the order of the Sessions Court stands set aside and those documents are ordered to be retained on file. As suggested supra, the matter shall be processed further by the learned Magistrate.
The criminal revision case is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Msk To
1. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Uthagamandalam.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court