Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 907 (MP)

Jaideep Singh Munda v. State Of M. P.

2016-10-05

RAJENDRA MAHAJAN

body2016
ORDER : Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Y. D. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally at the motion stage itself. 2. The applicant has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by an order dated 27-7-2016 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge Umaria (Smt. Krishna Parste) in Sessions Trial No. 76/13 titled State of M.P. through Police Station Kotwali Umaria vs. Jaideep Singh Munda, whereby his application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short “the Act”) is disallowed. 3. The short facts of the case for just and proper disposal of the petition are that the applicant is facing trial under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code in the Sessions Case upon the accusation that when he was posted as Junior Data Entry Officer in the Revenue Inspectors Training School Umaria (for short “the school”), he was also the In-charge of the “computer section” of the school. In May 2012, he dishonestly misappropriated or disposed of ten central processing units (for short “the CPUs”) of the computers worth around Rs. 55,000/- and thus he has committed an offence of criminal breach of trust by public servant. The prosecution against the applicant has been initiated upon the written FIR dated 6-8-2012 lodged by the then Principal of the school D. S. Kakodia. 4. In the course of trial of the case on behalf of the applicant, an application under Section 65 of the Act has been moved before the learned trial Judge. The sum and substance of the application is that upon the oral instructions of D. S. Kakodia, the applicant had initiated proceedings for repairing of the CPUs of the school vide note-sheet dated 2-3-2012 in an official file bearing No. 4/2011. In the file, D. S. Kakodia ordered to call for quotations for the repairing of the CPUs. Later, he admitted the quotation submitted by Aditya Sharma of Global Sistech Manpur. Thereupon, the applicant handed over the CPUs to Aditya Sharma for repairs. Aditya Sharma had not returned the CPUs after a long time. In the file, D. S. Kakodia ordered to call for quotations for the repairing of the CPUs. Later, he admitted the quotation submitted by Aditya Sharma of Global Sistech Manpur. Thereupon, the applicant handed over the CPUs to Aditya Sharma for repairs. Aditya Sharma had not returned the CPUs after a long time. Thereupon, he brought this fact to the notice of D. S. Kakodia, who in turn, sent a written report dated 11-5-2012 to the SHO Police Station Umaria (Annexure A-1) requesting him to lodge a criminal case against Aditya Sharma for dishonest misappropriation or disposal of the CPUs. However, the police did not act upon the written report of him. In the meantime, D. S. Kakodia called for the file pertaining to the repairing of the CPUs, which was by now in the possession of the applicant. Having smelled a rat, he took photographs of the relevant documents of the file. Thereafter, D. S. Kakodia lodged the written FIR dated 6-8-2012 against him at Police Station Umaria holding him responsible for dishonest misappropriation or disposal of the CPUs. At the same time, a departmental inquiry is also initiated against him in which he has sought certain documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Thereupon, the principal of the school informed him vide letter dated 2-7-2012 (Annexure A-3) that relevant file is not available in the office. Hence, it is not possible to give him copies of the documents which he has sought for, whereas D. S. Kakodia had already taken the file from him. In support of the application, the applicant has filed his own affidavit. On the basis of averments made in the application, it is prayed by the applicant that he be permitted to produce the photographs of the relevant documents annexed with the application as secondary evidence to prove his defence. 5. Having heard the arguments raised on behalf of the parties, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the application vide the impugned order holding that in Section 65 of the Act seven cases are enumerated when documents of a party of the case may be admitted as secondary evidence but the applicant's case does not fall under any of the seven cases. Hence, this petition. 6. Hence, this petition. 6. After referring to the para 1 of the official letter dated 2-7-2012 (Annexure A-3) written by the Principal of the School to the applicant, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the principal admits existence of the file regarding the repairs of the CPUs. After referring to the official letter dated 11-5-2012 (Annexure A-1) written by the principal to the SHO Umaria, he submits that the report proves that Aditya Sharma of Global Sistech Manpur was given CPUs for repairs. He submits that under the circumstances, the applicant's application is covered under the case/clause “a” of Section 65 of the Act. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge ought to have accepted the documents annexed with the application in secondary evidence. 7. Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer. 8. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and upon a perusal of the aforesaid documents, I am of the confirmed opinion that the applicant's case is covered under the case/clause “a” of Section 65 of the Act. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has erred in rejecting the application. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The application under Section 65 of the Act is allowed and he is permitted to produce documents in secondary evidence annexed with the said application subject to proving them in accordance with law. The learned trial Judge is directed that if prosecution witnesses, who have been examined, are required to recall for being crossed on the documents annexed with the application upon the prayer of the applicant, they shall be summoned at the State expenses. 9. Accordingly, this petition is finally disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.