Dismissed

Ajay Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC30 Jul 2012CR. MISC./13610/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a quashing petition seeking to overturn orders rejecting a prayer for production of documents. The court held Section 311 Cr.P.C. applies to witnesses, not documents, and Section 294 Cr.P.C. is inapplicable after evidence closure.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing the impugned orders stands dismissed on admission stage itself.

Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13610 of 2012 (5) dt.30-07-2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13610 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Ajay Kumar S/O Late Heeralal Verma Resident Of Village- Nagdah, P.S.- Muffasil (Sighaul O.P.), District- Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Tuntun Dass S/O Late Jhari Das 3. Rajendra Dass S/O Late Jhari Dass 4. Navin Kumar @ Bablu Kumar S/O Tuntun Dass All are Resident Of Village- Baghi, P.S.- Town, District- Begusarai .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 5 30-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission. This petition is being disposed of on admission stage itself. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 16.01.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Begusarai in Criminal Revision No. 133 of 2011 by which and whereunder he affirmed the order dated 28.12.2010 passed by Sri A. K. Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai in Complaint Case No. 753 C of 1998. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that father of petitioner filed complaint case bearing Complaint case No. 753 C of 1998 against opposite parties no. 2

¶3

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13610 of 2012 (5) dt.30-07-2012

¶4

to 4 and in the aforesaid complaint case, opposite parties no. 2 to 4 were put on trial. The evidence of both the parties were recorded. The statements of opposite parties no. 2 to 4 were recorded under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and the case was pending for argument for near about five years and after that a petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the petitioner mentioning this fact that two documents i.e. certified copy of decree of Execution Case No. 111 of 1934 and certified copy of khatian of khasra no. 1125 were essential documents for just and proper decision of the case. The aforesaid petition was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate passing the impugned order dated 28.12.2010 against which petitioner preferred Criminal revision No. 133 of 2011 which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge passing the impugned order against which this quashing petition has been filed.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of petitioner filed above stated complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 753 C of 1998 to this effect that opposite parties no. 2 to 4 removed idols of Goddess Laxmi and God Shiv from the land of father of the petitioner and, therefore, the above stated two documents were very important documents to prove the prosecution case but when in course of trial opposite parties no. 2

¶6

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13610 of 2012 (5) dt.30-07-2012

¶7

to 4 denied the possession of father of petitioner over the disputed land, the petitioner filed a petition before the trial court praying therein to exhibit the aforesaid two public documents but the learned trial court as well as revisional court did not pay any heed towards the aforesaid facts and rejected the prayer of the petitioner. It is further contended by him that the learned trial court as well as revisional court failed to appreciate this matter that the aforesaid two documents are admissible in evidence under Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is further contended by him that father of the petitioner died during the pendency of trial of opposite parties no. 2 to 4 and after death of his father, petitioner got inspected the concerned record and then it came to notice that the above stated two documents have not been filed before the trial court and that is the reason of delay of making prayer for exhibit of the aforesaid two documents.

¶8

Having heard the contentions of both the parties, I went through the record. I find that the above stated complaint case was filed in the year 1998 and since then the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 are facing trial. Furthermore, I find that the prosecution case was closed and the case was pending for argument for near about five years and after such a long gap the above stated prayer was made before the learned trial court.

¶9

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13610 of 2012 (5) dt.30-07-2012

¶10

Here, I would like to refer Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.

¶11

which runs as follows:-

¶12

Any court may, at any stage of any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.

¶13

From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it would clear that the aforesaid provision has been made for examination or re-examination of a witness and the aforesaid provision does not permit the court to take documentary evidence and, therefore, in my view, in the present case, petitioner cannot take any help of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.

¶14

So far as Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, the said section says that (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.

¶15

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13610 of 2012 (5) dt.30-07-2012

¶16

(2) The list of documents shall be in such form as

¶17

may be prescribed by the State Government.

¶18

(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not

¶19

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:

¶20

Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.

¶21

It would appear from perusal of the aforesaid section that the aforesaid provision comes into play before the closure of prosecution or defence evidence as the case may be and, therefore, the aid of the aforesaid provision cannot be taken after closure of prosecution or defence evidence as the case may be.

¶22

In the present case, admittedly, the prosecution as well as defence case had already been closed and the case was pending for argument for more than five years and, therefore, in my view, Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. is also not applicable in the present case.

¶23

Accordingly, on the basis of aforesaid discussions, this petition stands dismissed on admission stage itself.

¶24

Let a copy of this order be sent to the court of Sri A. K. Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai with

¶25

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13610 of 2012 (5) dt.30-07-2012

¶26

direction to the concerned court to dispose of Complaint Case No. 753 C of 1998 as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶27

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) SHAHZAD/-

Ajay Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binod Mukhiya Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Rama Kant Mishra Vs the State of Bihar

Rana Antesh Signh and Anr. Vs State of Bihar and Anr.

Aklu Sahani Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Mahendra Kamkar Vs the State of Bihar

Inderdeo Yadav Vs the State of Bihar