Jharkhand High Court
Dhanbad Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd vs The State Of Jharkhand Through A.C.B on 1 September, 2022
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 312 of 2022
------
Dhanbad Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Dhanbad .... .... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through A.C.B.
2. Parsuram Chouhan
3. Narendra Kumar Mishra @ Nand Kishore Mishra
4. Vinod Kumar
5. Satish Chandra Mahato
6. Sheshnath Singh
7. Ramod Narayan Jha
8. Tejnath Jha .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashish Kumar, A.C. to SC (Mines)-III
-----
Oral Order 03 / Dated : 01.09.2022
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for passing appropriate order for quashing the order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X-cum-Special Judge, Vigilance, Dhanbad in Special (Vigilance) Case No. 45 of 2013 whereby and whereunder, learned trial Court has been pleased to dismiss the prayer of the petitioner under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. for allowing to exhibit documents collected in the argument during course of investigation.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents, which were sought to be exhibited under this provision, were collected during the investigation, found to be the part of the case diary.
3. Learned public prosecutor who conducted the case should have taken appropriate steps for proving of these documents but for reason best known to him these documents were never brought on record. It was against these backgrounds that the Bank, which was the victim of the fraud committed by its own officials, was constrained to file these documents for its proof under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court without entering into the merit of the case simply rejected it only because both, the public prosecutor and the defence counsel, had opposed the petition. It is further submitted that these documents are relevant and necessary for proper adjudication of the matter and, therefore, the petition needs to be allowed for the ends of justice.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made in the petition for making these documents exhibited under Section 294 of Cr.P.C.
2It is submitted that the accused petitioner is protected under Article 20 of the Constitution of India for being a witness against himself. Here in the instant petition the Bank has produced certain documents for admission on the part of the accused persons and, therefore, it was denial on their part. In any case they cannot force to admit the incriminating evidence appearing against them. Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that the object of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C is to accelerate the pace of the trial. If the opposite party admits its formal proof is dispensed with, otherwise it has to be formally proved. It has been held in Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana, (2016) 15 SCC 485:
11. The object of Section 294 Cr.P.C. is to accelerate pace of trial by avoiding the time being wasted by the parties in recording the unnecessary evidence. Where genuineness of any document is admitted, or its formal proof is dispensed with, the same may be read in evidence. Word "document" is defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872, as under:
"Document.--'Document' means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.
Illustrations A writing is a document;
Words printed, lithographed or photographed are documents; A map or plan is a document;
An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document; A caricature is a document."
Here in the present case it is intriguing why the Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. If the defence had denied the documents then it could still be proved formally as per the provision of the Evidence Act. It appears that since the document had been directly sent by the Bank, therefore the PP opposed it. It is a glaring example of disconnection between the prosecution and the victim Bank. In any case the cause of justice should not suffer. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Court below is directed to proceed as per law and in the event the genuineness of documents are not admitted and denied by the defence, the prosecution shall be at liberty to prove these documents as per law.
The Writ petition is allowed as at above.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT