Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Md. Akbar And Anr. vs State Of A.P., Through P.S. Rep., By Its ... on 15 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(1)ALT(CRI)572, 2002CRILJ3167
ORDER C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. This petition is filed to quash the order-dated 25.6.2001 in Crl.M.P.No.1672 of 2001 in C.C.No.136 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate.
2. After the closure of the prosecution case and after examination of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., prosecution filed Crl.M.P.No.1672 of 2001 in C.C.No.136 of 1997 under Sec.294 Cr.P.C., seeking permission of the Court to receive certified copy of an order of injunction, certified copies of the pahanies and certified copy of the F.I.R. in Cr.No.84 of 1997 said to have been registered subsequent to the registration of the F.I.R. in this case. Petitioners, who are the accused in this case, opposed the said application contending that the documents are not genuine and that those documents ought to have been collected during the course of investigation and that the prosecution is not entitled to fill up the gaps in its case after they are examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., The learned Magistrate, rejecting the contention of the petitioners, allowed the petition on the ground that the documents being certified copies, can be received and read in evidence, as there is no necessity to prove the signature of any party contained in the said documents.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that since the accused were not called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents, as contemplated by Sec.294 (1) Cr.P.C., and since the pahanies are manipulated and since the contents of the F.I.R. have to be proved, the accused ought to have been given an opportunity to say what they have to in respect of the pahanies and the certified copy of the F.I.R. produced into Court. It is his contention that the word 'fabrication' used in the counter filed by the petitioners/accused refers to pahanies, and not to the certified copy of the court order and that the Court below without making a reference to the pahanies and the F.I.R. produced by the prosecution, on the basis or assumption that only a certified copy of the order of the Court was sought to produced, decided the petition, thereby causing great injustice to the petitioners.
4. Since Crl.M.P.No.1672 of 2001, the order in which is impugned in this petition, was filed under Sec.294 Cr.P.C., I feel it necessary to extract the said section here "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 enquiry, 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."
The documents produced with the petition are certified copies of Order of Civil Court, pahanies and F.I.R., which are all public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of Evidence Act. As per Sec.76 of the Evidence Act, certified copies of public documents can be issued to any body, and as per Sec.77 of the Evidence Act certified copies of public documents can be produced in proof thereof. Sub-Section [3] of Section 294 Cr.P.C. applies to private documents, but not to public documents since question of proof of signatures in the certified copies of public documents does not arise. If documents, which are not public documents, are sought to be relied on by the prosecution only, question of proof of those documents and signatures therein would arise. In this case since all the three documents produced by the prosecution are public documents within the meaning of Sec.74 of the Evidence Act, strictly speaking no formal proof thereof is necessary and so they can be admitted in evidence by virtue of Sec.77 of the Indian Evidence Act. So I find no merits in this petition.
5. Since petitioners wish to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses in respect of the documents, received by the trial court petitioners are given liberty to file a petition for that purpose before the trial Court, and the trial Court, after due consideration of the said application, is at liberty to, pass appropriate orders on that petition.
6. Before parting with the case, I must state that the petitioners cannot in any way be said to be prejudiced by the order of the Court below receiving the documents as evidence, because they would be examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. as to what they have to say in respect of those documents, and would also be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in regard thereto, if they so desire. Only in case such opportunity was not given, can they be said to have been aggrieved.
7. For the above reasons the petition is dismissed. However, petitioners are at liberty to file a petition to recall such of the witnesses they wish to recall and cross examine them only with reference to the documents produced by the prosecution with the petition.