Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
M.S. Jawalkar, J.
Anne Messias Gomes - Appellant
Versus
State Of Goa - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 69 of 2020
Decided On : 25-01-2021
Production of Documents - Criminal Proceedings - The court allowed the accused to produce specific documents from a claim petition to support her case in a criminal proceeding, finding them prima facie relevant to prove her innocence. However, other documents were deemed irrelevant and not allowed to be produced.
Fact of the Case:
The accused in a criminal proceeding sought to produce documents from a claim petition to support her case. The trial court had initially allowed the accused to produce the documents, but later dismissed the application to produce additional documents, citing delay and lack of relevance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that certain documents from the claim petition were prima facie relevant to support the accused's case and allowed their production, while deeming other documents irrelevant and not allowing their production.
Issues: The issues revolved around the relevance and admissibility of documents from a claim petition in a criminal proceeding, as well as the conduct of the accused in seeking to produce these documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed the accused to produce specific documents from the claim petition that were deemed prima facie relevant to support her case, while deeming other documents irrelevant and not allowing their production.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the accused's application, modifying the trial court's order to allow the production of specific documents from the claim petition, while not allowing the production of other documents.
JUDGMENT
M S Jawalkar, J. - The present Petition is filed challenging the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 10.02.2020 in Criminal Case No. 102/S/2016/B passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vasco da Gama, Goa.
2. The petitioner submits that he is accused in the above criminal proceeding for having committed offence under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. The applicant moved an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling the complainant as there is a previous statement made in the claim petition on oath, which was contradicting his statement before the learned JMFC, Vasco. The said application dated 25.07.2019 was withdrawn by the petitioner and another application dated 11.11.2019 was moved under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to re-examine the complainant as defence witness and to produce documents in support of her case. However, re-examination was not pressed.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 315 of Cr.P.C. to allow to examine herself in defence, which was allowed. While her chief examination was going on, she filed application dated 23.01.2020. The said application dated 23.01.2020 came to be dismissed.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order is illegal. By denying production of documents, the Trial Court had denied the opportunity of leading proper defence. It is further contended that the examination of chief (accused) was not concluded. It is submitted that the finding of the Court that the petitioner had not or was not intending to produce the documents earlier allowed by the Court, is bad in law. The learned JMFC erred in finding that the petitioner had not stated the relevancy of the documents, specially when, relevancy can be seen while marshalling the evidence and not at the stage of production of the documents. It is submitted that the petitioner wants to bring on record contradictory statements of the complainant, which are made in the claim petition and in the criminal proceedings, specifically when, both the proceedings are the result of one incident. These statements create doubt in the version of the prosecution. It is submitted that the statements of the complainant before the Claims Tribunal was on oath and therefore, it can be relied on. Further it is submitted that there was no intention at all to delay the matter and that for last two years there was no Presiding Officer, which fact was not considered by the Trial Court.
5. In reply, Mr. Mahesh Amonkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the order is justified. It is submitted that it is the abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the earlier application filed by the accused, though allowed by the Court, instead of producing those documents, filed another application without giving any proper justification or statement stating the relevancy of those documents to the charges of rash and negligent driving by the accused.
6. The learned JMFC dismissed the said application in view of the ground that the accused cannot rely upon the documents in claim petition to prove her innocence as the proceedings before the learned Judge is a criminal proceedings. Secondly, the matter has been delayed and dragged by the accused and the Advocate appearing for the accused, by applying and withdrawing the applications, causing inconvenience to the Court, party and the prosecution. Moreover, there is no whisper of the relevancy of the documents and how the said documents would come to rescue to absolve her from the charges of rash and negligent driving and accordingly, the application was dismissed.
7. I have called for the Record & Proceedings and perused the same. There is no dispute that the accused examined herself as defence witness and her chief was yet to be completed. It is true that all the documents are not relevant in the criminal proceedings, however, these documents i.e. the affidavit in evidence and deposition of the complainant in Claim P
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
