Back
2019 Supreme(Gau) 1134
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Ajit Borthakur, J.
Pranjyoti Hazarika – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and Others – Respondents
Crl. Pet. No. 256 of 2019
Decided On : 16-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R. Dubey.
For the Respondent: A.C. Borbora.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure – Sections 91 200 202 311 – Evidence Act – Sections 60 and 64 – Indian Penal Code – Sections 177 468 471 – Jurisdiction to Call Witness – By this petition under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside the order, passed in CR Case under Sections 177/468/471 of the IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class – Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that while passing the impugned order, the learned Magistrate wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the said provision relates to summoning of witness not for calling of documents and as such, the order is beyond its jurisdiction – Counsel further submits that the learned Magistrate has called the official witnesses of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, to prove the documents so called for, who are not cited as witness in the complaint petition – According to Counsel, the learned Magistrate ought to have considered/exercised the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. a law point, which this Court may clarify and accordingly, set aside the impugned order – Held, The three documents, referred to in the impugned order, which are specifically mentioned above, and copy of which were made available to the learned Court below, are essentially the basis of the whole case of the respondent/complainant, and thus, without the contents of the said documents being proved by the evidence of the persons, who can vouchsafe for the truth of their contents, the complainants case is certain to fail – Because, by mere filing of a document, its contents are not proved – So original document has to be produced to prove its contents by way of examining the persons concerned, who, in the instant case, is the concerned official of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, whom the learned Court summoned along with the relevant documents, mentioned above, in exercise of the power vested in it under Section 311 Cr.P.C. although mention of Section 91 Cr.P.C. was not made – The impugned order does satisfy all the conditions precedent for calling witness along with relevant documents in his possession/dominion over or acquainted with their contents – Considered thus, this Court finds no any illegality or incorrectness in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate – Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed – Revision Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Ajit Borthakur, J.
1. Heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. AC Borbora, learned senior counsel for the sole respondent.
2. By this petition under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside the order, dated 29.3.2019, passed in CR Case No. 46 of 2015 under Sections 177/468/471 of the IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dibrugarh. The aforesaid criminal proceeding has been initiated by the respondent/complainant, who is the Managing Director of M/s. Rongmon Nirman Pvt. Ltd. against the petitioner/ accused.
3. The respondent/complainant filed the aforementioned complaint case being C.R. Case No. 46 of 2015 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner/accused in connivance with one Smti Reena Mech, Circle Officer, Chabua Revenue Circle, Dibrugarh committed fraud by causing issue of a false and absurd land valuation certificate, on 19.06.2013, suppressing the relevant official notification determining the land value, through the said Circle Officer, which led to deprivation of settlement of the Bogibeel-Karenbali Ferry Service in the tender process. The aforementioned ferry service was initially settled in favour of the petitioner/accused, on 04.03.2015.
4. Having made over the case for disposal, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dibrugarh, after due enquiry under Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C. and consideration of a police report, dated 04.06.2015, by order, dated 15.12.2015, took cognizance of offences, under Sections 177/468/471 of the IPC against the petitioner. Thereafter, at the stage of evidence before charge, the respondent/complainant filed a petition praying for calling some documents relevant to the case from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh and by the impugned order, dated 29.03.2019, the learned Judicial Magistrate allowed the petition. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/accused has preferred the instant revision.
5. Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that while passing the impugned order, dated 29.03.2019, the learned Magistrate wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the said provision relates to summoning of witness not for calling of documents and as such, the order is beyond its jurisdiction. Mr. Dubey further submits that the learned Magistrate has called the official witnesses of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh to prove the documents so called for, who are not cited as witness in the complaint petition. According to Mr. Dubey, the learned Magistrate ought to have considered/exercised the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. a law point, which this Court may clarify and accordingly, set aside the impugned order.
6. Mr. A.C. Borbora, learned Senior counsel for the respondent, submits that the impugned order is a legally well reasoned order inasmuch as the learned Magistrate exercised its discretion on consideration of the facts and circumstances more particularly, the relevancy of the documents in question and after due inquiry and satisfaction for the proper adjudication of the complaint. Mr. Borbora further submits that mere alleged wrong quotation of a provision of law, when the relevant principles of law are applied judiciously, does not render an order invalid which is otherwise valid in law and that the petitioner/accused has failed to show as to how he is prejudiced by the impugned order. Mr. Borbora, therefore, submits that the petition may be dismissed.
7. I have given due consideration to the above arguments advanced by the learned counsel of both sides and perused record.
8. The impugned order, dated 29.3.2019, passed by the learned Magistrate in C.R. Case No. 46 of 2015 is extracted as herein below (Relevant portion):
"............Section 311 Cr.P.C. invest wide discretion upon the court to call and examine anyone as a witness if the court is of the opinion that
