Rakkappan v. State, rep.by The Inspector of Police, Cherambadi Police Station, Uthagamandalam District

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:26.6.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIACrl.R.C.No.719 of 2006andM.P.No.1 of 2006Rakkappan... Petitionervs.State, rep.byThe Inspector of Police,Cherambadi Police Station,Uthagamandalam District... Respondent Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against theorder dated 27.6.2006, passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge,Uthagamandalam, in S.C.No.1 of 2004.For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.SridharanFor Respondent : Mr.Hasan Md.Jinnah,A.P.P. O R D E R Challenging and impugning the order dated 27.6.2006, passedby the Assistant Sessions Judge, Uthagamandalam, in S.C.No.1 of2004, this criminal revision case is focussed.2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts,which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of thiscivil revision case would run thus:The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173Cr.P.C. as against the accused for the offences under Sections332 and 307 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty, whereupon,after complying with the legal procedures, trial was commenced andthe prosecution closed its side. At that stage, the accused filed apetition under Section 294(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C. virtually to get thefollowing three documents, admitted in evidence.1. Certified copy of petition filed by the petitionerunder Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the Court of the SessionsJudge of Nilgiris, in Crl.M.P.No.455 of 2000 on 27thSeptember 2003 together with the order passed by thelearned Sessions Judge on the said petition on 11.10.2000; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Certified copy of the order passed by theHonourable Sessions Judge of the Nilgiris, on 11.10.2000 inC.M.P.No.455 of 2000.3. Certified copy of the offence report in number TNF57/2000.According to the petitioner, those documents are certified copiesissued by the Court relating to the legal proceedings. The learnedPublic Prosecutor, in-charge of the case, objected to it,whereupon, the Court passed the order dismissing the petition onthe sole ground that the Prosecutor objected for marking suchdocuments. 3. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said orderof the Sessions Judge, this revision is focussed on variousgrounds, the warp and woof of them would be to the effect thatabsolutely there is no rhyme or reason on the part of the AssistantSessions Judge in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner; thatthose documents are certified copies of the legal proceedings andas such, as per the Indian Evidence Act, they are admissible inevidence.4. Heard both sides.5. At this juncture, I would like to reproduce here underSection 294 of the Cr.P.C. "294. No formal proof of certain documents – (1)Where any document is filed before any Court by theprosecution or the accused, the particulars of every suchdocument shall be included in a list and the prosecutionor the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for theprosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called uponto admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.(2) The list of documents shall be in such form as maybe prescribed by the State Government.(3) Where the genuineness of any document is notdisputed, such document may be read in evidence in anyinquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code withoutproof of the signature of the person to whom it purports tobe signed:Provided that the Court may, in its discretion,require such signature to be proved. 6. It is ex facie and prima facie clear that when either ofthe parties to the criminal proceedings, if wants to file somedocument, they are at liberty to file such documents and call upon https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the other side either to admit or deny the genuineness of each suchdocument. It is open for the other side to either accept or denythe genuineness of the document. If it is denied by the oppositeparty, the party, who wants to rely upon it should resort to thenormal procedure of marking the document. As such, Section 294Cr.P.C.is not the be- all and end-all of the right to adduceevidence before Court and either of the parties to criminalproceedings to put forth their documents before the Court, thereare other modes of relying on their documents for being consideredby the Court. De hos, the method contemplated under Section 294Cr.P.C. It is quite obvious and axiomatic that through thewitnesses, either the prosecution or the defence could mark thedocuments. Even during cross-examination, documents could bemarked by virtue of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. Inthis case, simply because the Public Prosecutor objected and didnot signify his consent relating to the genuineness of thedocuments, the lower Court was not justified in dismissing thatapplication. The lower Court should have allowed the documents tobe filed in Court.7. Now the question arises as to whether it open for theaccused to put forth those documents as evidence, despite theobjection emanating from the prosecution side. 8. It is a well settled proposition, based on the practice ofcriminal courts that the accused at the time of his examinationunder Section 313 Cr.P.C. could file statements, along with suchstatement, the accused is entitled to enclose necessary documents,which are ex facie and prima facie reliable by the Court. 9. In this connection I would like to extract hereunderSections 74, 75 and 76 of the Indian Evidence Act.Section. 74 Public documents – The following documentsare public documents:(1) documents forming the acts or records of the acts-(i) of the sovereign authority(ii)of official bodies and tribunals, and(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial andexecutive of any part of India or of the Commonwealth, or ofa foreign country;(2) public records kept in any State of privatedocuments75. Private documents – All other documents areprivate.76. Certified copies of public documents – Every publicofficer having the custody of a public document, which anyperson has a right to inspect, shall give that person ondemand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor,together with a certificate written, at the foot of suchcopy that it is a true copy of such document or part https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall bedated and subscribed by such officer with his name and hisofficial title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officeris authorised by law to make use of a seal; and such copiesso certified shall be called certified copies.Explanation- Any officer who, by the ordinary course ofofficial duty, is authorised to deliver such copies, shallbe deemed to have the custody of such documents within themeaning of this Section.10. A cumulative reading of those provisions of the IndianEvidence Act would exemplify and demonstrate that if certifiedcopies of a public documents are filed in Court, even withoutformal marking or proof, the criminal Court can take into account,at the request of either of the parties and the criminal Court atits judicial discretion could assign markings to them. Here, thethree documents referred to supra are the certified copies issuedby the Courts pertaining to legal proceedings and I am at a loss tounderstand as to what prompted, actuated, accentuated, propelledand impelled the learned Public Prosecution to object for suchlegally admissible documents. 11. Above all, these documents are the certified copies of theanticipatory bail application, which the accused filed before theSessions Court along with the order of dismissal by the SessionsCourt and also the offence report filed by the police. In myopinion, the learned Public Prosecutor could have refrained fromobjecting to such documents and he could have given his consent forformal marking. In the absence of such formal consent having beengiven by the Public Prosecutor, the Court could have very wellobserved that those certified copies could be relied on by theCourt, as they are all certified copies issued by the Courtrelating to the Court proceedings. Hence, with this observation,the order of the Sessions Court stands set aside and thosedocuments are ordered to be retained on file. As suggested supra,the matter shall be processed further by the learned Magistrate.The criminal revision case is ordered accordingly.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MskTo1. THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGEUTHAGAMANDALAM2. -do- Thro THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICTAND SESSIONS JUDGEUTHAGAMANDALAM3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,CHERAMBADI POLICE STATION, UTHAGAMANDALAM DISTRICT.4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT, MADRAS.1 cc To Mr.K.V.Sridharan, Advocate, SR.27263Crl.R.C.No.719 of 2006KG(CO)SRA(13/07/2009)