Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devki Nandan Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2015
MCRC-13586-2015
(DEVKI NANDAN DUBEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
09-10-2015
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT
JABALPUR
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE
NO.13586/2015
Devki Nandan Dubey and another
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
â¦.......................................................................................
.......................
Present:-
Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar
............................................................................................
......................
Shri Puneet Shroti, counsel for the applicants.
Shri Divesh Jain, Government Advocate for
respondent/State
............................................................................................
......................
ORDER
(09-10-2015)
1. This miscellaneous criminal case has been instituted on an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against order dated 04-08-2015 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.351/2013, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that Letter No.482-B dated 30-07-2006 was merely a covering memo, whereby the disputed documents were sent for examination by Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Bhopal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further held that in these circumstances, it cannot be said that copies of all documents filed along with the charge sheet were not made available to the accused persons; therefore, learned defence counsel were directed to argue the matter on the question of charge on the next date of hearing. A prayer has also been made to direct the prosecution to make copies of aforesaid letter and the documents filed therewith to the Government Examiner and in case the prosecution fails to do so, the proceedings be quashed.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may briefly be stated thus:
Charge sheet was filed on 20 th of May, 2008 against applicants Devki Nandan Dubey, Narendra Awasthy and co-accused Sushil Patel to the effect that they had forged agreement dated 18-03-2003 purportedly signed by complainant Murli Dhar and his son Vinod for sale of agricultural land admeasuring 25 acres, to applicant Devki Nandan Dubey at the rate of Rs.6,00,000/- per acre. During investigation, it was found that the agreement did not bear the signatures of complainant Murli Dhar and his son Vinod.
3. An application was moved on behalf of accused persons that document dated 30-07-2006 on the basis of which handwriting expert had given his opinion, was not made available to the accused persons. In this regard, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in writing that Letter dated 30-07-2006 was in fact a memo bearing dispatch No.482/B/2006 which was sent to the Examiner of Questioned Documents for expeditiously sending his report with regard to the questioned documents sent earlier by covering memo No.482 of 2006. The Letter No.482/B/2006 could not be traced after search by the concerned police station.
4. However, inviting attention of this Court to the correspondence between the S.P. Jabalpur and Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, it has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that document No.482/B/2006 dated 30-07-2006 has not been made available to the defence; therefore, the charge against accused persons cannot be framed. Thus, either the prosecution be directed to make the aforesaid documents available to the defence before framing of the charge or in the alternative the proceedings before the learned trial Court be quashed.
5. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent /State on the other hand has submitted that Letter No.482/B/ 2006 dated 30-07-2006 is not a disputed document nor it is a document sent to the Examiner of Questioned Documents for the purpose of comparison of signatures. It is merely a covering memo on which the prosecution is not relying. It has been contended that in aforesaid circumstances, it is obvious that the accused persons are merely trying to take advantage of non- availability of aforesaid document for causing delay in framing of charge at any cost. Therefore, it has been prayed that this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be dismissed.
6. A perusal of record reveals that at the stage of charge, an application was moved on behalf of the defence under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contending that copies of all documents on which the prosecution is relying were not made available to the accused persons. This application was dismissed on 16-05-2015. The order was challenged in the High Court in criminal revision No.1145/2015. The revision was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 19-06-2015, holding that no such application under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pre-empting framing of charge, is maintainable. The trial Court was directed to consider all the objections raised by the accused persons at the time of framing of charge. Another criminal revision being 1479/2015 filed on behalf of accused persons was disposed of by the High Court by order dated 10-07-2015, with a direction to the trial Court to proceed for framing of charges if all the documents mentioned in the charge sheet are available on record. It was further observed that if some documents are sent to the State Examiner, then the trial Court shall ensure that photo copies of such documents are available on record.
7. Now the grievance of the petitioners in the present application under section 482 is that all documents mentioned in the charge sheet are not available on record because aforesaid Letter No.482/B/30-07-2006 has not been filed.
8. It is true that it is incumbent upon the prosecution to file all the documents on which it relies with the charge sheet. The copy of such documents is also required to be furnished to the defence. However, it is abundantly clear from the reply dated 13-04-2015 filed by Additional Public Prosecutor in the trial Court that the document No.482/B/ 2006 dated 30-07-2006 was merely a reminder to the State Examiner of Questioned Documents to expedite the submission of report with regard to the documents sent earlier vide covering memo No.482 of 2006 dated 04-05-2006. No fresh documents were sent along with letter no. 482-B to the Examiner.
9. By Letter dated 06-06-2006 sent by the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur at least ten natural signatures of complainant Murli Dhar Chate made before the incident, were sought for the purpose of comparison. A reply was sent by Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur on 19-05-2006 vide Letter No.482A/2006, whereby the Examiner of Questioned Documents was informed that it was not possible to collect ten natural signatures of complainant Murli Dhar Chate which were made before the date of incident. Therefore, only three signatures (S/7, S/8 & S/9) were being sent for the purpose of comparison. Thereafter, the State Examiner of Questioned Documents submitted his report vide Letter dated 18-04-2007 to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, which contained opinion with regard to documents marked Q/1, Q/2 and S/1 to S/9. It is true that it has been mentioned in Letter dated 18-04-2007 that the documents were received by State Examiner vide Letter Nos. 482, 482A & 482B dated 04-05-2006, 19-05-2006 & 13-07-2006 respectively but it is obvious that the documents were sent only through Letter Nos.482/2006 & 482A/2006. The only documents sent to the Examiner were Q/1, Q/2 and from S/1 to S/9.
10. In fact the prosecution is relying only on these eleven documents; copies whereof have been made available to the defence. The prosecution is not relying upon the Letter No.482-B dated 30-07-2006. In these circumstances, it is obvious that a mountain is sought to be created out of a mole-hill by the defence in an obvious attempt to delay the framing of charge for as it possibly can. As such, defence cannot be allowed to take advantage of the fact that a memo sent by the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur to State Examiner of Questioned Documents is not traceable and hold the progress of the trial simply because an inconsequential document is not made available.
11. Learned counsel for the applicants has invited attention of the Court to judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of V.K.Sasikala Vs. Superintendent of Police, AIR 2013 SC 613 wherein, it has been held that the documents submitted in the Court along with charge sheet though un-exhibited or unmarked, ought to be disclosed to the accused, if demanded in order to ensure fair trial. It has further been observed that it is not for the prosecution or Court to comprehend the prejudice that is likely to be caused to the accused. However, in this case, the document No.482-B dated 30-07-2006 is neither a material document nor is it being relied upon by the prosecution nor has it been filed along with the charge sheet. Thus, the principle enunciated in the case of V.K.Sasikala (supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
12. Similarly, it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC 1106 that the petition for quashing charge sheet can be filed even before framing of the charges and the petition cannot be rejected on the ground that accused can argue legal and factual issues at the time of framing of the charge. There is no doubt that powers under section 482 can be exercised before framing of the charge. However, in the present case, no grounds are available for such quashing. Charge sheet cannot be quashed simply because an inconsequential covering memo is not made available.
13. Likewise, there can be no dispute that the proposition of law made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of G.P.Pathak Vs. State of M.P., 2003(1) MPHT 174 to the effect that the prosecution is required to supply copies of those documents to the accused on which it proposes to rely. In the instant case, the copies of those documents on which the prosecution proposes to rely, have been furnished to the accused persons.
14. In aforesaid circumstances, there is no substance in this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking extra-ordinary powers of the High Court.
15. Consequently, this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is dismissed.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE