Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab Urban Planning And Development ... vs Maru Singh on 11 May, 2010
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
Crl.Revision No.110 of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Revision No.110 of 2003
Date of decision:11.5.2010
Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority
... Petitioner
versus
Maru Singh
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Mr.Saurabh Goel, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Abhishek Arora, Advocate,
for the respondent.
...
JORA SINGH, J.
Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as `PUDA') filed this revision to challenge the judgment dated 25.9.2002 passed by JMIC, Mansa. By the said judgment, Maru Singh son of Tahal Singh, resident of Khiala Malakpur, was acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
Junior Engineer, PUDA, wrote a letter to the SSP, Mansa, regarding violation of provisions of Punjab Regulation of Colonies Act on the allegation that Maru Singh owned land and from that land, he sold five different plots in the year 1994 vide different sale deeds dated 5.10.1994 by leaving 18 feet wide passage to approach the plots. Plots were sold for residential/commercial purpose. Without obtaining any licence, by selling more than five plots, Maru Singh carved out unauthorised colony in violation of Section 3(1) and 8(1) of the Punjab Regulation of Colonies Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act').
Crl.Revision No.110 of 2003 2
After appearance of the accused, copies of all the documents were supplied. After going through the documents on file and hearing learned counsel for the PUDA and respondent-accused, trial Court opined that a prima facie case is made out against the respondent-accused to frame charge under Section 11(1) of the Act.
Six PWs were examined in support of the complaint.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent.
In defence, copy of khasra girdwari (Ex.DA) was produced. After hearing learned counsel for PUDA, defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of evidence on record, respondent-accused was acquitted of the charge levelled against him vide the impugned judgment.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent and gone through the evidence on file.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent owned land situated in Mansa, but five different sale deeds were executed by him to construct unauthorised colony, without obtaining licence under the Act. Evidence on the file was not properly scrutinized. Complaint was dismissed on the allegation that PUDA failed to prove different sale deeds executed by the respondent. Learned counsel further argued that certified copies of three sale deeds were tendered into evidence. Under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, copies of sale deeds tendered into evidence were certified copies of public documents and under Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, presumption stands attached to the genuineness of certified Crl.Revision No.110 of 2003 3 copies. When evidence on file was not properly scrutinized and judgment is perverse and is against law and facts, then same is required to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent argued that complainant only examined Sharla Devi and one Kulbhushan Dass to prove sale deeds (Ex.P1 and Ex.P2). Remaining three sale deeds (Ex.P3 to Ex.P5) were tendered into evidence. But objection was raised when the documents were tendered into evidence regarding mode of proof. Original sale deeds were not produced. No application was moved to lead secondary evidence. Sale deeds (Ex.P3 to Ex.P5) were rightly ignored.
Admittedly, respondent owned land. According to PUDA, five sale deeds were executed by the respondent without obtaining licence to construct a colony. Question is whether PUDA is in a position to explain whether five sale deeds were executed by the respondent in the year 1994. First sale deed (Ex.PA) is in favour of Sarla Devi and second sale deed (Ex.P2) is in favour of Kulbhushan Dass. No suggestion to the vendees that sale deeds were not executed by the respondent in their favour.
Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 are certified copies of sale deeds and the same were tendered into evidence. Firstly, no application was moved to summon the vendees with original sale deeds. In case, vendees were not available, then marginal witnesses of the sale deeds could easily be summoned. If vendees and marginal witnesses were not available and PUDA was not in a position to produce them in Court, then an application should have been moved to seek permission to lead secondary evidence. After summoning the record from the office Sub Registrar, certified copies of sale deeds should have been exhibited.
To convict the respondent-accused qua offence punishable Crl.Revision No.110 of 2003 4 under Section 11 of the Act, PUDA was required to prove that five or more than five plots were solved without getting permission from the competent authority of PUDA, but on record, only two sale deeds were legally proved by summoning the original sale deeds with the vendees.
As discussed earlier, copies of three sale deeds were tendered into evidence but learned counsel for the petitioner failed to cite any authority that by tendering only certified copies of sale deeds without summoning the original and getting the sale deeds exhibited by examining the vendees or marginal witnesses, PUDA is in a position to convince that offence punishable under Section 11 of the Act was committed.
Under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, certified copies of public documents are to be issued by public officer. Section 76 is reproduced as under:-
"76. Certified copies of public documents.- Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies."
Under Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, presumption as to genuineness of certified copies is attached. Section 79 is reproduced as Crl.Revision No.110 of 2003 5 under:-
"79. Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies.- The Court shall presume to be genuine every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy, or other document, which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be duly certified by any officer of the Central Government or of a State Government, or by any officer in the State of Jammu and Kashmir who is duly authorized thereto by the Central Government:
Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf.
The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be signed or certified held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper."
Under Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act, contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence and under Section 62 of the Act, primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court.
When primary evidence is not available, or due to some unavoidable circumstances, party is not in a position to produce primary evidence to prove the document, then under Section 63, secondary evidence is to be led but to lead secondary evidence, permission of the Court is to be sought before leading secondary evidence. In the present case, allegation of the petitioner is that certified copies of sale deeds (Ex.P3 to Ex.P5) are per Crl.Revision No.110 of 2003 6 se admissible but when primary evidence is available and no effort is made to adduce primary evidence to prove the registered documents, then I am of the opinion that tendering of only certified copies in the Court is not sufficient to opine that the documents, i.e., certified copies carry evidentiary value. If allegation of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct one, i.e., tendering of only certified copies is sufficient to prove the case, then by filing compliant, only one officer of the PUDA can appear in the Court and tender certified copies. No need to summon the vendees with original or the marginal witnesses to exhibit the sale deeds.
If it is presumed that certified copies are per se admissible, then no need to obtain permission to lead secondary evidence or exhibited the documents by examining vendees or marginal witnesses, and if they are not available, then any witness who can identify their signatures. Then question is whether the property sold was for residential purpose or not. Sarla Devi (PW5), one of the vendees, in cross-examination admitted that the land purchased was for agricultural purpose and there is no house. Kulbhushan Dass (PW6) also admitted that there is no construction in the purchased property and the purchased property is at a distance of eight kms. from City Mansa.
For the reasons recorded above, I am of the opinion that evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. No scope for interference.
Revision against the judgment of acquittal is dismissed.
11.5.2010 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE