Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
V. Venkatesan - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 6998 of 2019 and Crl. M.P. No. 3860 of 2019
Decided On : 28-03-2019
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 294 - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 7 - Petitioner claimed money - Seeking to admit document - letting in evidence - Petitioner had raised a defense stating that he is not competent authority to issue No Objection Certificate and that defector complainant had excavated a trench in to carry out illegal taping of water from PWD Branch Canal and thereby had directed defector complainant to close the said trench stating that unless trench is closed No Objection Certificate” will not be issued by competent authority. Having grudge over same defector complainant had given false complaint against petitioner/accused as if petitioner claimed money – Held, As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor no particulars are available with regard to what was information sought for in the application under the RTI Act and what was the reply given by concerned authorities with regard to same and in such circumstances, it would be unsafe to accept the documents without formal proof and thereby the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition - In view of above discussion Court do not find any infirmity in order passed by learned trial Judge - At same time, while dismissing Criminal Original Petition this Court is of opinion that non acceptance of the document under Section 294 does not preclude the party requiring to mark it in the manner known to law at relevant stage of trial and thereby liberty may be afforded to the petitioner to mark documents in the event of petition being filed invoking appropriate procedure taking into consideration the stage of trial - In a later decision of Hobble Apex Court reported in State of Haryana, it has been held that endorsement regarding admission or denial can be made by the counsel for the opposite party seeking to produce the document under Section and once it is denied by the other side, the party seeking to produce it, has to prove it, in the manner known to law by letting in evidence It may be mentioned that even if the genuineness of a document filed by the prosecution or the accused under sub-section (1 is not disputed by the opposite party the Court may require the proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed under the Proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 294 Cr.P.C., In such a case the signatory of the document must appear in Court and prove his signature and the document will thereafter be read as substantive evidence - Petition disposed of
ORDER :
A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.
1. The petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, in Crl.M.P. No. 639 of 2019 in Special C.C. No. 4 of 2015, dismissing the petition filed under Section 294 Cr.P.C., seeking to admit the document dated 24.03.2017.
2. The petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused, who is facing trial for the offences under Sections 7 and 12(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from the defacto complainant for issuance of No Objection Certificate.
4. The petitioner had raised a defence stating that he is not the competent authority to issue No Objection Certificate and that the defacto complainant/P.W. 2 had excavated a trench in S.F. No. 130/2, to carry out the illegal taping of water from PWD, Kugular Branch Canal and thereby had directed the defacto complainant to close the said trench, stating that unless the trench is closed, the “No Objection Certificate” will not be issued by the competent authority. Having grudge over the same, the defacto complainant had given false complaint against the petitioner/accused as if the petitioner claimed money. After the trap on 13.05.2005, the Vigilance Officials had asked the PWD Officials to issue “No Objection Certificate” to the defacto complainant. The Officer, one Mr. P. Ramasamy, Junior Engineer, who had taken charge in the place of the petitioner/accused had also reiterated that unless the trench excavated by the defacto complainant is closed, he could not recommend for “No Objection Certificate” to the defacto complainant, by his letter dated 25.05.2005 and that only after closing of the trench, P.W. 5 Mr. Ragunathan, had recommended for No Objection Certificate to the defacto complainant on 11.06.2005.
5. The factum was also spoken by the Investigating Officer, Mr. Balashanmugam, who was examined as P.W. 17 and thereafter, the petitioner to substantiate his defence had applied for copy of the said documents from the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division, Gobi, under the RTI Act and he was issued with a reply by letter dated 24.03.2017, containing the (i) letter No. Ko 2/2005 dated 25.05.2005 by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division PWD, WRO, Gobichettipalayam (ii) letter No. 696/2005/Ko 50 dated 25.05.2005 by Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division PWD, WRO, Gobichettipalayam and (iii) letter No. 696/2005/Ko 50 dated 11.06.2005, since the above documents were obtained from the government Officials, by way of request under the RTI Act, the petitioner claiming the documents to be public documents had filed a petition seeking to admit them without any formal proof as per Section 294 Cr.P.C.
6. The respondent had filed a counter, before the trial Court denying the genuineness of the documents and thereby objecting to admit the documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C., stating that the right of the accused to produce any documents would accrue to him only after the accused enters into defence and after recording the evidence by the prosecution.
7. The learned trial Judge after hearing both sides had dismissed the petition stating that,
“Heard both side. Records perused. The petitioner/accused No. 1 has come forward with the present application by invoking the provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C. Calling upon the respondent/complainant to admit the genuineness of the document filed along with the application. The respondent/complainant is not willing to admit the genuineness of the document. In fact in the counter statement the respondent has raised doubt about the genuineness of the document.
In view of the categorical stand taken by the respondent in the counter statement, this Court decides that the application cannot be allowed.
In the result this application is dismissed.”
8. Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned counsel app
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
