Dismissed

Sabbir and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC21 Aug 2017CRLMP/5833/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition challenged the dismissal of an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking medical records and call details. The court distinguished the cited precedent as facts were different and dismissed the petition since the applicants could obtain documents via other means or question witnesses during trial.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. dismissed. Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed.

Sabbir and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5833 / 2016

¶3

Sabbir S/o Shri Umar Mohd, age about 24 years, by caste- Mev, R/o Jhiwana, Police Station-Bhiwadi-III, District-Alwar.

¶4

Sahun S/o Shri Illyas, age about 30 years, by cast-Mev, R/o Nimbahedi, Police Station- Tapukada, District- Alwar.

¶5

Azad S/o Shri Umar Mohd., age about 21 years, by caste-Mev, R/o Jhiwana, Police Station-Bhiwadi-III, District-Alwar.

¶6

Aslam S/o Shri Gaffur, age about 36 years, by caste – Mev, R/o Nimbahedi, Police Station-Tapukada, District-Alwar.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Balwada Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Gurjar, P.P.

¶12

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶13

Judgment

¶14

21/08/2017

¶15

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 challenging the order dated 18.10.2016 whereby application moved by the petitioners under Section 91 Cr. P.C. was dismissed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the medical record sought to be produced by the petitioner was very necessary to be brought on record for the just decision of the case. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Jasveer Vs. State of Rajasthan 2015 (3) Criminal Law Reporter, Rajasthan 1192 wherein, it was held

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLMP-5833/2016]

¶19

that application filed under Section 91 Cr. P.C. was liable to be allowed as the accused had sought summoning of the call details of the Station House Officer (SHO) and Police Constable as the said call details could not be said to be in the control or approach of the accused. Accused could not procure the said documents on his own.

¶20

In the present case, petitioners are facing Trial in FIR No.382 dated 07.11.2015 for the offence under Sections 343, 307 & 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Tapukada, District Alwar. During the pendency of the Trial, petitioners moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for direction to the Investigating Agency to produce the bed-head-ticket of the deceased and call details of phone number 9782114601. The phone number in question belongs to the petitioner No.1.

¶21

Section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as under:-

¶22

“91. Summons to produce document or other thing.- (1) Whenever any court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

¶23

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.

¶24

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed-

¶25

(a) to effect, sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or

¶26

(b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegram authority.”

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[CRLMP-5833/2016]

¶29

Thus, as per above provision, court has ample power to seek production of any document or other thing which is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Court. In the present case, petitioner has moved application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. that the bed-head-ticket of the deceased be ordered to be placed on record.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments has failed to inform the Court as to what is the stage of the proceedings. Petitioners can question the doctor who is examined during trial with regard to the treatment/admission details of the deceased. So far as phone number belonging to petitioner No.1 is concerned, the call details and other details with regard to the said phone number can be obtained by the petitioners by moving an application in this regard. In case, any medical record of the deceased is not produced on record by the Investigating Agency along with challan, petitioners can examine the necessary witnesses in thier defence in this regard. However, the application moved by the petitioners under Section 91 Cr. P.C. was liable to be dismissed. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners fails to advance the case of the petitioners as it is based on different facts. No ground for interference by this court is made out.

Dismissed.

(SABINA) J.

S.Kumawat

Jr. P.A.

Sabbir and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabbir and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veer Singh Vs Haridutt Sharma and Anr.

Badan Singh Vs Shri M S Khan and Ors.

Rajat Mourya Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Lakhan Singh Meena Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Meethalal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Mahesh Chand Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp