Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
B.A. Khan, J.
Rajesh Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Gupta - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 34/1996
Decided On : 30 August, 1996
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 242, 244, 435(4-A) - DOCUMENTS PRODUCTION - ALLOWANCE AFTER STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 242 - Magistrate has the power to allow a complainant to place any documents on record after the substance of the accusation had been put to the accused and where no prejudice is likely to be caused to him.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged orders allowing respondent to produce additional documents in a complaint filed under Section 138-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, after his statement was recorded under Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Magistrate had the power under Section 244(1) CrPC to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, including documentary evidence, even after recording the accused's statement under Section 242 CrPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate had the power to allow the production of additional documents after recording the accused's statement under Section 242 CrPC? 2. Whether the Magistrate erred in relying on Section 94 CrPC and a previous judgment of the court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 242 CrPC does not require the complainant to furnish a list of documents along with the complaint or prohibit the Magistrate from allowing the production of additional documents. 2. Section 244(1) CrPC empowers the Magistrate to take all evidence in support of the prosecution, including documentary evidence, and this power can be exercised even after recording the accused's statement under Section 242 CrPC. 3. The Magistrate's reliance on Section 94 CrPC and the previous judgment was irrelevant, as Section 94 deals with the production of documents during investigation or inquiry, and the judgment dealt with a different point.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the Magistrate had the power to allow the production of additional documents and that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The Magistrate has the authority under Section 244(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to allow the production of additional documents in support of the prosecution even after the statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 242 CrPC, provided that no prejudice is caused to the accused (!) (!) .
The production of documents after the accused's statement does not violate the procedural provisions, as Section 242 CrPC does not require the complainant to furnish a list of documents at the outset nor prohibit subsequent submission of relevant evidence (!) .
The power to admit additional evidence, including documents, is supported by Section 244(1) CrPC, which allows the Magistrate to take all evidence necessary for the support of the prosecution, even after the initial statement of the accused has been recorded (!) .
The reliance on other procedural provisions or judgments that relate to different aspects of document production or investigation is considered irrelevant to this specific issue, which pertains to the Magistrate’s discretion during the trial of summons cases (!) .
The Court emphasized that the procedural safeguards are designed to prevent prejudice to the accused, and as long as no such prejudice is caused, the Magistrate's discretion to allow additional documents remains intact (!) .
The revision petition challenging the Magistrate’s order was dismissed, reaffirming that the Magistrate’s decision to permit the production of additional documents was within his authority and did not violate procedural fairness (!) .
The preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition against an interlocutory order was noted, but the Court proceeded to examine the merits, ultimately upholding the Magistrate’s authority (!) (!) .
These points collectively establish that in the context of summons case trials, a Magistrate has broad discretion to permit the production of additional evidence, including documents, at any stage of the proceedings, provided it does not cause prejudice to the accused.
2. It appears that a complaint was lodged by the respondent against the petitioner under S. 138-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The substance of allegation was put to him under S. 242, Cr.P.C. Thereafter the respondent (complainant) sought to place some documents on record in support of his case. This was allowed by the Magistrate by placing reliance on a judgment of this Court, 1987 Kash LJ 712 : (1988 Cri LJ 1141) and by overruling the objection taken by the petitioner (accused) that no such document could be permitted to be brought on record after the statement of the accused was recorded under S. 242, Cr.P.C.
3. Petitioner questioned this order of the Magistrate in a revision before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, but failed. The revisional Court took the view that the Magistrate was not debarred from allowing the documents to be placed on record after he had recorded the statement of the accused under S. 242, Cr.P.C. He also found the action in order as according to him, no prejudice was likely to be caused to the accused.
4. This is the second revision filed in a repeat exercise by the petitioner taking by and large the same pleas. He contends that since the complainant (respondent) had made no mention of the documents in question in this complaint and as the documents in were neither necessary nor desirable for trial and since his statement stood recorded under S. 242, Cr.P.C., the Magistrate had no competence and power to allow the additional documents to be placed on record.
5. Petitioners counsel, Mr. Nanda, went a step further to point out that the Magistrate had placed a wrong reliance on S. 94, Cr.P.C. which empowered the Magistrate to call for a document from any party or witness in accordance with the requirements of the provision.
6. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent took a preliminary objection that the present revision was not maintainable, preferred as it was, against an interlocutory order in terms of S. 435(4-A) Cr.P.C. which provided that powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. He, however, justified the impugned action of the Magistrate on the ground that he had the requisite power under S. 244, Cr.P.C. "to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution".
7. This revision could be dismissed on the preliminary objection itself because the order of the Magistrate allowing the respondent to produce some additional documents, is undoubtedly an interlocutory order, passed at the intermediate stage of proceedings and for final determination of the complaint. Therefore, the bar imposed by S. 435(4-A) was squarely applicable in the matter.
8. But even so I propose to proceed to examine the grievance of the petitioner on merits. The pleas taken by the complainant lack in substance because no provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins upon a complainant to furnish a list of the documents along with the complainant that he proposed to rely on in the trial in a summons case. Non does any provision debar a Magistrate to allow a complainant to place any documents on record after the substance of the accusation had been put to the accused and where no prejudice is likely to be caused to him.
9. Section 242 falls under Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with the trial of summons cases by the Magistrate. It provides for stating all the substance of the accusation to the accused requiring him to show cause why he should not be convicted. While doing so, he is not confronted with any documents nor required to admit or deny the
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
