Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(4) Now, as regard the non-filing of the documents by the complainant, admittedly there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure under which a complainant can be directed to file copies of the documents which he (the complainant) may have to produce on the record as a part of his evidence, either at the trial or at the enquiry stage. There is also no provision casting a duty on the complainant even to file any list of documents as relied on by him on the record of the case at any stage of the case. The complainant is entitled to produce documents as relied on by him and to get them proved as and when the witness from whom the relevant document is to be proved comes in the witness box. Thus, in my opinion, the order of the learned Magistrate directing the complainant to file copies of the documents as relied on by the complainant before the complainant was called upon to produce his evidence at the enquiry was unwarranted and strictly speaking the complainant was not bound to comply with the same. Mr. Arora submitted that an order directing the complainant to file copies of the documents as relied on by him in the case could validly be passed by the learned Magistrate in a complaint case. In support of his submission he referred to the judgment of this Court in M/s Viniyoga International v. The State, 1985 Cr.L.J. 761. In this case it was held by H.L. Anand J. (as his Lordship then was) that the accused has got the right to get copies of Sec: 161(3) statements and of documents sought to be relied on by the prosecution at the threshold of the trial itself. This judgment has no bearing on the facts of the present case as that was a case in which the police had investigated the case of the commission of a cognizable offence, namely under Section 5 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Though the offence was a cognizable one, cognizance could not be taken by the Court except on a complaint by the specified authority. It was under these circumstances that it was held that the police having investigated the case and having recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the mere fact that under the provisions of the Act a complaint, and not a police challan, was to be filed for the court to take cognizance of the offence, did not make any difference and in such as situation copies of the statements recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. and of documents sought to be relied on by the prosecution were required to be given to the accused. So far as the present case is concerned the main offence is under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, which is a non-cognizable offence. Further no investigation was conducted by the police in the case, nor was statement of any witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It may also be stated here that even in the case of an offence under Section 5 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947, a different view had been taken in two other cases by two other learned Single Judges of this Court namely, A.N. Lewis and another v. The State, 2nd (1974) I Delhi 410, and (ii) Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v. M.L. Gupta, Cr. R. 256/72, decided on 5th December, 1972. In A.N. Lewis (supra) it was held that the offence committed under Section 5 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947 being strictly prohibited from being taken cognizance of by a court, except on a complaint in writing made by an officer authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, it was not required of the officer of the police station, where the First Information Report regarding that offence was recorded, to forward to a Magistrate a report of his investigation and therefore, there was no obligation to supply copies of the documents mentioned in Section 173(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case of M.L. Gupta (supra) which was under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act. 1947 investigation had been conducted by the police and statements of witnesses had also been recorded by the police. It was held by M.R.A. Ansari J. (as his Lordship then was) that as no report under Section 173 was filed by the police the accused was not entitled to by given copies of the documents as required by Section 207 Cr.P.C. However, as pointed out by me above the case in hand stands on a different footing. I am, therefore, not really called upon to deal with the matter that came in for consideration in the said cases. I accordingly hold that the order directing the complainant to file copies of documents was unwarranted and illegal. It may be pointed out here that a complainant may be otherwise persuaded to file copies of documents for speedy enquiry and/ or trial. However, no such order without the consent of the complainant can be passed. Next, even if it be assumed that the learned Magistrate could justifiably make such an order against the complainant, I am of the clear view that the learned Magistrate could, in any case, not dismiss the complaint for the non-compliance of such an order as there is no provision for dismissal of a complaint for any such default. Some other consequence viz. debarring the complainant from later producing its documentary evidence at the enquiry or at the trial stage might if at all, occur for the non-compliance of such an order.