Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.6 By filing memo, the petitioner has produced copies of (i) the application filed under Section 321, CrPC, by the Public Prosecutor, (ii) the opinion provided to the Government regarding the withdrawal of prosecution, (iii) orders passed by the trial court regarding withdrawal.

4. The statement of objections came to be filed by the State raising various contentions in the rebuttal. A contention was also raised that the petitioner has produced confidential government documents including the cabinet note without explaining the source from which such documents were procured. It is stated that the documents are obtained illegally and produced to put up a case, on that ground alone the petition deserves to be dismissed. It is stated that the petitioner has misrepresented the cases. 4.1 It was harped that Government has role and the instruction given by the Government in the impugned order could not be said to have violative of Section 321 CrPC., it is contended that they are the mattes of public policy for the Government and out of policy, the cases are decided to be withdrawn and the impugned order has been passed asking the Public Prosecutors to withdraw the cases. It is denied that there is no independent application of mind by the Public Prosecutor in withdrawal of cases. 4.2 It is claimed that 'Government claims crucial role in the withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC'. It is contended that power is reserved for the executive government to withdrawn the criminal cases on broader grounds of public policy, maintenance of law and order, public peace and harmony, and 'social and political consideration'. 4.3 Learned Advocate General opposed the present public interest petition and grant of prayers therein that confidential documents are annexed without justification. It was contended that false averments were made and the case put forth is illegal which require dismissal of the petition. In this regard, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. B. Singh Vs. Union of India [2004 (3) SCC 363], in Kishore Samrite Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012 SCC ONLINE SC 884) and in Tehseen Poonawalla Vs. Union of India (2018 SCC ONLINE SC 400) for their respective paragraphs.

Sd/-

(Ravi S) Principal Secretary to Government (PCAS) Home Department."

5.4.1 As could be seen from paragraph 4 titled as Inter Ministerial Consultations, it is recorded in terms that, the Police Department, Department of Prosecution and Government Litigations and Law Department were consulted and their opinions obtained. They are of the opinion that these cases are not fit for withdrawal. 5.5 A ground is raised as preliminary objection that the Cabinet Note was a confidential document and the petitioner procured it somehow and anyhow, which could not be but by illegal means, therefore, it could not have been produced before the court. Pausing in this regard, the law on this aspect may be looked at.

- 16 -

5.5.1 The Supreme Court has considered the issue of the kind and nature about the placing of the document on record and about its procurement by the litigant. In Umesh Kumar Vs. State of AP reported in 2013 (10) 591 SCC. The Supreme Court observed that even though the complaint was bogus, however the sale deeds annexed along with the same illegally collected by someone were not fabricated documents. It is further observed, "It is a settled legal proposition that even if a document is procured by improper or illegal means, there is no bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. If the evidence is admissible, it does not matter how it has been obtained. However, as a matter of caution, the court in exercise of its discretion may disallow certain evidence in a criminal case if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against the accused. More so, the court must conclude that it is genuine and free from tampering or mutilation. This court repelled the contention that obtaining evidence illegally by using tape recordings or photographs offend Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India as acquiring the evidence by such methods was not the procedure established by law. (Vide: Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 147; Magraj Patodia v. R.K. Birla & Ors., 1970 (2) SCC 888; R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157; Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection, Income-Tax, New Delhi & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 348; and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC