Jharkhand High Court
Basarat Mirza vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 986 of 2020
1. Basarat Mirza, S/o Late Budhu Mirza, aged about 76 years, R/o
Sikdardih, P.O. -Handadih, P.S. -Giridih (M), District -Giridih.
2. Md. Zainul @ Md. Zainul Abdeen, S/o Md. Abbas, aged about 42
years, R/o Bodo Tola, Bankhanja, P.O. -Pachamba, P.S. -Giridih
(M), District -Giridih.
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Mustakim Mirza, S/o Late Alijaan Mirza, R/o Sikdardih, P.O. -
Handadih, P.S. -Giridih (M), District -Giridih.
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, Advocate .....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 04.01.2020, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -VI, Giridih in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2019 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih has set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Giridih and allowed the documents filed by the prosecution under Section 294 Cr.P.C. and marked them Exhibits.
1 Cr.M.P. No.986 of 2020
3. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant in Complaint Case No. 1747 of 2007 filed two petitions. One of them was under
Section 294 Cr.P.C. which is the subject matter of this criminal miscellaneous petition. By the said petition, filed under Section 294 Cr.P.C., the complainant sought the :
(i) certified copy of the registered sale deed;
(ii) judgment of Title Appeal No. 17 of 2003;
(iii) deed of registered will; &
(iv) (iv) original R.R. which was filed along with the list of documents.
Earlier the similar prayer was also made by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and the same was rejected by the learned trial court. On 22.06.2019, the learned Judicial Magistrate
-1st Class, Giridih considered that in their rejoinder, the accused inter-alia took the plea that the documents which have been sought to be proved under Section 294 Cr.P.C. are not public documents and the accused persons disputed and denied the genuineness of the said documents and did not allow the same. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2019 in the court of learned Sessions Judge which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih, vide order dated 04.01.2020. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih committed an error of record by mentioning in the internal page no.4 of the impugned order that the accused persons did not 2 Cr.M.P. No.986 of 2020 question the genuineness of the documents sought to be proved under Section 294 Cr.P.C. and they also did not deny for the same and under the said erroneous impression, committed because of an error apparent on the face of the record, allowed the petition.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the impugned order dated 04.01.2020, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih is not sustainable in law because the same has been passed on the basis of the error apparent on the face of the record. It is, then submitted that since Section 294(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically mandates that where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding, without the proof of signature of the persons, to whom it purports to be signed but in this case, as the petitioners-accused persons of the case has in no uncertain manner have disputed the genuineness of the same. Hence, it is submitted the impugned order dated 04.01.2020 is not sustainable in law and the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
5. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition but fairly submits that the petitioners-accused challenged the genuineness of the documents sought to be brought in evidence under Section 294 Cr.P.C.
3 Cr.M.P. No.986 of 2020
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is crystal clear from perusal of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as under:-
294. No formal proof of certain documents:-
(1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.
(2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.
(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed:
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.
That documents can be read in evidence without any formal proof if the genuineness of any document is not disputed but as already mentioned above, the petitioners-accused have challenged the genuineness of the documents, hence this Court is of the considered view that order dated 04.01.2020, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2019 having been passed on the basis of an error apparent on the face of the record, the same is not sustainable in law and the same is quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Giridih in Complaint Case No. 1747 of 2007 dated 22.06.2019 is restored. 4 Cr.M.P. No.986 of 2020
7. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
8. The interim order passed earlier vide order dated 08.09.2020 is vacated.
9. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24th September, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
5 Cr.M.P. No.986 of 2020