Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1668 (RAJ)

Bhag Chand v. State Of Rajasthan

2011-08-10

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for summoning of exhibited document in Court at the stage of hearing of revision petition. 2. The facts of the case are that proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. were undertaken in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate. Malpura, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 were parties in the proceeding. In the said proceeding, respondent No. 2 submitted a document i.e., sale-deed dated 14.5.1973, and the same was exhibited as Ex. B-1. Photo copy of the same was kept on record, and the original was returned to respondent No. 2. The matter was finally decided by Sub Divisional Magistrate Malpura vide judgment dated 30.1 1.2002. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 preferred a revision petition before the Additional District Judge, Malpura. During the course of revision petition, the petitioner prayed that the original exhibited document Ex. B-1 should be summoned from respondent No. 2, for the just decision of the revision petition. The said application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard learned Counsel for parties, and perused the material available on record. 4. A perusal of the record clearly reveals that the document which was sought to be summoned by the petitioner was document which had been exhibited at the trial. Section 397, Cr.P.C. reads thus:- "397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.-(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such Inferior Court. and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending-the examination of the record. and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending-the examination of the record. Explanation - All Magistrate, whether executive or judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398." Thus a Revisional Court while considering revision petition is to call for the record of the Court below and with the record it is assumed that complete record should be there. The document which had been exhibited was a property of the Court. That was returned to respondent No. 2 just to keep the same safely. When the revision petition came up for hearing, the application was filed for summoning the original document. The application was within the spirit of section 397, Cr.P.C. 5. Accordingly, the misc. petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 1.9.2005, passed by Additional District Judge, Malpura, is quashed and set aide. The Revisional Court is directed to issue direction to respondent No. 2 to produce the original document Ex. B-1 on record, for the purpose of just disposal of the revision petition. 6. The stay application also stands disposed of.Petition Allowed. *******