Allowed

Devendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC6 Mar 2018CRLMP/752/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash a sanitized order and direct the FSL to examine original documents instead of photocopies submitted during investigation for offences under IPC Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 380, noting that photostats are not acceptable evidence under Indian Evidence Act Sections 62 and 63.

What did the court decide?

Directed investigating officer to send original documents to FSL; FSL to submit report within one month.

Devendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 752/2017

¶3

Devendra Singh S/o Late Shri Guman Singh B/c Rajput, R/o Plot No.58, Sain Colony, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

¶7

Gayad Singh S/o Shri Kan Singh B/c Rajput, R/o A-28, Prem Nagar, Jhotwara, Raj.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhoop Singh Poonia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aladeen Khan PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶11

Order

¶12

06/03/2018

¶13

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 14.9.2015 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, No.16, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 415/2015 registered for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC be set aside alongwith the order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶14

Briefly stated, respondent no.2 had lodged FIR No.677/2013 dated 16.10.2013 against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. Meanwhile, another FIR No. 871/2013 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 380 IPC was also registered against the accused respondent no.2 at the instance of the mother of the petitioner.

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMP-752/2017]

¶17

During the course of investigation, documents collected by the investigating agency were sent for verification to FSL.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the documents sent to FSL were photostate copies of the original and original documents were not sent. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that identification card issued by the Election Commission in favour of the petitioner was tampered with by the respondent no.2. It is submitted that photocopy of the Election Card was sent to FSL and upon report submitted by FSL upon photostat copies, petitioner is being prosecuted.

¶19

Attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been drawn to Section 62 and 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, which define primary and secondary evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner is conscious that since photostat copies are neither primary nor secondary evidence, therefore, at this stage, he should not fill the lacuna of the prosecution case. The learned counsel for the petitioner with all responsibility has stated that even if original documents are examined and result thereof is to peril of the petitioner, for the sake of justice, petitioner shall pray that the original documents should be examined by the FSL.

¶20

The learned Public Prosecutor could not justify as to how reports submitted upon photostat copies can be taken into consideration.

¶21

Thus, at the insistence of the petitioner, the present petition is accepted and it is ordered that if original documents are in possession of the investigating officer, same shall also be sent to FSL for opinion of handwriting expert. FSL is directed to submit the report upon the original documents sent by the investigating officer within one month from receipt of certified copy of this

¶22

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-752/2017]

¶23

order. The trial court shall take into consideration the report of the FSL submitted upon original documents along with the report submitted by FSL on photostat copies of the documents by examining whether the report regarding photostat copies can be taken into consideration or not.

¶24

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶25

Mak/-

Devendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

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

Bane Singh Vs Shri Sanjay Dixit

Baljeet Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Pranvendra Singh@Sonu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Surendra Kuamr Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Mukesh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.