Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1628 (PNJ)

Rajinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-05-11

DAYA CHAUDHARY

body2010
Judgment Daya Chaudhary, J. 1. The present revision- petition has been filed against order, dated 12.1.2010 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana whereby an application moved by Additional Public Prosecutor for exhibiting certain documents has been allowed without deciding the objections raised by the petitioner against admissibility of said documents. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that FIR 107 dated 15.11.2002 under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC was registered against the petitioner as well as other co-accused. After completion of the investigation, challan was submitted against the petitioner and other co-accused. All documents relied upon by the prosecution for the purpose of adjudication of trial were attached with the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Charges were framed against the petitioner as well as his co-accused on 17.5.2007 and case was adjourned on various dates for evidence of the prosecution. On 12.1.2010, learned APP tendered documents Exhibits P-l to P-9 and closed the case on behalf of the prosecution. An objection was raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner regarding admissibility of these documents but the trial Court without deciding the objections allowed the said documents to be placed on record, which is subject matter of challenge is the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that when said documents were produced before the Court, no notice was issued to raise objection and the objection raised by the petitioner, with regard to admissibility of those documents was not considered. The trial Court has passed totally a non- speaking order without mentioning any reason as to how these documents can be placed on record or how these are necessary for just and proper decision of the case. Learned counsel further submits that the mode of proof or reason for producing these documents at such a later stage has not been mentioned in the impugned order which has resulted into a great injustice to the petitioner. 4. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab submits that the documents allowed to be placed on record were necessary for just decision to the case and accordingly the same were allowed to be placed on record in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order. 6. AG, Punjab submits that the documents allowed to be placed on record were necessary for just decision to the case and accordingly the same were allowed to be placed on record in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order. 6. It is clear from the impugned order that the documents tendered by the APP has been allowed to be exhibited without giving any notice to the opposite party. Although an oral objection was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner but no opportunity was given and nothing has been mentioned in the impugned order itself as to how these documents were necessary for just decision of the case. Learned trial Court has also not mentioned anything with regard to admissibility of those documents and had passed totally a non- speaking order without considering objections raised by the petitioner. 7. Section 173 Cr.P.C. relates to procedure regarding submission of report in the Court after completion of investigation for the purpose of trial. As per Section 3 73(5) Cr.P.C, the Investigating Officer has to forward to the Magistrate all the documents along with report on which the prosecution relies, other than the documents which have already been sent to the Magistrate during investigation. Section 207 Cr.P.C. mandates supply of copies of documents to the accused also. Section 207 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under : "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 there from 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 confession 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." 8 As per provisions contained in Section 207 Cr.P.C., copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution and the documents with the challan are to be supplied to the accused. Similarly, in the present case, all these documents were supplied to the petitioner as well as to his co-accused vide order dated- 5.6.2009. 9. On 12.01.2010, learned APP tendered documents in evidence which were Exhibited P-l to P-9. These documents, except Exhibit P-l, were never part of challan report which was submitted by the Investigating Officer after conclusion of investigation. Although objections were raised against the admissibility of these documents by the learned counsel for the petitioner but those objections were not considered and the above-said documents were allowed to be placed on record without mentioning any reason thereof. Nothing is mentioned in the impugned order as to how these documents were relevant for just decision of the case. All these documents were neither part of the challan nor supplied to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate should have either decided the objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner against the admissibility of these documents or a finding should have been given as to how these documents were necessary for the purpose of trial. Learned Magistrate has straightway admitted these documents by way of evidence without giving any finding and without decision of the objection raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 10. Mr. Sra, learned counsel for the State has also no objection in remanding the case to the trial Court for passing a speaking order after considering the objections raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 11. 10. Mr. Sra, learned counsel for the State has also no objection in remanding the case to the trial Court for passing a speaking order after considering the objections raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 11. Keeping in view the above-said position of law and the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the State, the impugned order dated 12.01.2010 passed by S.D.J.M. Samana is set aside and the trial Court is directed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner and pass a speaking order after hearing the objections. The petition is disposed of with above directions. Petition disposed of.