Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 496 (RAJ)

Satyanarayan Gupta v. State of Rajasthan

2013-02-28

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2013
Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The complainant-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.1.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, Dausa whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application filed by the Investigating Officer for giving him the original copies of two documents, i.e. the stamp papers dated 24.7.2010 and 31.8.2012. 2. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the cases of Borilal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2006 Cr.L.J. 1715), and Tunda Ram Meena vs. State of Rajasthan (2009(3) RCC 908), has contended that the bar contained in Rule-181 of the General Rules (Civil) 1986, do not permit the civil court to dismiss the application filed by the Investigating Officer. It merely requires the civil court to take the orders of the High Court on the subject. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the Investigating Officer. Secondly, until and unless the original documents in dispute are given to the Investigating Officer, the same cannot be subjected to examination by the FSL. In absence of FSL report, the prosecution would not be able to stand on its two feet. Hence, it is imperative that the documents, which are in the custody of the civil court, should be handed over to the Investigating Officer. 3. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that Rule-181 of the Rules clearly debars the civil court from issuing any document until and unless the request is made by the Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court or a Tribunal of the Government, or the Board of Revenue, or the Commissioner of Excise and the Inspector General of Registration & Stamps. In all other cases, the record can be issued only upon orders of the High Court. Hence, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in dismissing the application as the application was moved by a police officer. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, police officers are not included in Rule-181 of the Rules. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case laws cited at the Bar and examined the impugned order. 5. The purpose of investigation is to gather the relevant facts in order to discover the truth. Therefore, the Investigating Officer would certainly require the originals of the documents about which the allegation is that they have been forged by the accused persons. 5. The purpose of investigation is to gather the relevant facts in order to discover the truth. Therefore, the Investigating Officer would certainly require the originals of the documents about which the allegation is that they have been forged by the accused persons. Until and unless the documents are made available to him, the investigation cannot culminate into a final report. Obviously, the documents will be required to be sent to the FSL for its examination and report. Thus, it is imperative that the documents in question be given to the Investigating Officer. 6. Rule-181 of the Rules reads as under:- “181 – Prohibition against issue of records:- Ordinarily no record shall be issued except on the requisition of a Civil, Criminal, or Revenue Court or a Tribunal of the Government, or the Board of Revenue, or Commissioner of Excise and the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps and then only on the order of the Presiding Officer. In all other cases, before a record is issued the orders of the High Court shall be taken on the subject.” 7. It is imperative to note that the Rule requires taking of the order of the High Court on the subject. Hence, when an application is moved by a person not included in the category mentioned in Rule-181, the civil court is required merely to take an order of the High Court on the subject. Therefore, the civil court is not justified in dismissing the application. It is the duty of the Presiding Officer to bring it to the notice of the High Court and to take the order of the High Court on the subject. Due to the dismissal of the applications filed by the Investigating Officer, for seeking the original copy of the document, this court is being flooded by petitions like the present one. 8. For the reasons stated above, this petition is, hereby, allowed. The order dated 10.1.2013 is hereby quashed. The learned Magistrate is directed to handover the originals of stamp papers dated 24.7.2010 and 31.8.2012 to the Investigating Officer. However, before the originals are given, the certified copies of the same shall be kept in the court record. Moreover, the Investigating Officer is directed to return the original documents back to the civil court after receiving the FSL report. The learned Magistrate is directed to handover the originals of stamp papers dated 24.7.2010 and 31.8.2012 to the Investigating Officer. However, before the originals are given, the certified copies of the same shall be kept in the court record. Moreover, the Investigating Officer is directed to return the original documents back to the civil court after receiving the FSL report. Furthermore, the Forensic Science Laboratory is directed to give its report within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the original stamp papers.