IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
State Of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Asman & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-11894-2018 and CRM-M-13067-2018
Decided On : 16-03-2022
Arms Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 25 of the Arms Act - Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. - Section 74(l)(iii) of the Evidence Act - Section 78 of the Evidence Act - Section 57 of the Evidence Act - R.S. Singh Vs. U.P. Malaria Nirikshak Sangh and others 2011(4) SCC 281
Fact of the Case:
An FIR was registered against the respondent accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act for keeping in possession a country made pistol without a permit. The District Magistrate granted sanction for prosecution, and the Reader to the District Magistrate was cited as a witness to prove the sanction.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court's order to strike off the name of the Reader to the District Magistrate and summon the District Magistrate himself was found unjustified. The sanction order is a public document and can be proved by the Reader. The impugned orders were set aside, and the trial Court was directed to summon the Reader for recording the evidence.
Issues: Validity of the trial Court's order to substitute the witness and summon the District Magistrate, admissibility of the sanction order as a public document, and the right to cross-examine the person granting the sanction.
Ratio Decidendi: The trial Court's decision was based on the lack of application by the accused or the State for the substitution of the witness, the admissibility of the sanction order as a public document, and the right to cross-examine the person granting the sanction.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were set aside, and the trial Court was directed to summon the Reader to the District Magistrate for recording the evidence.
JUDGMENT
Arvind Singh Sangwan. J. - This order will decide the above mentioned two petitions.
2. Prayer in both the petition is for setting aside the orders dated 31.10.2017 and 21.11.2017 passed by the ACJM, Bhiwani in case titled 'State Vs. Asman and another' and 'State Vs. Jasbir, whereby the name of witness No.9, i.e. Reader to the District Magistrate, Bhiwani has been struck off from the list of witnesses and the name of Shri Pankaj, the then DistrictMagistrate, Bhiwani was ordered to be added in the list of witnesses and he was further summoned to appear as a witness.
3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was registered against the respondent accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act in Police Station Sadar Bhiwani, District Bhiwani for keeping in possession a country made pistol of .315 bore, along with 8 live cartridges without having any permit or license. Since it was a requirement of the Arms Act that before prosecuting the accused sanction for prosecution should be obtained from the concerned District Magistrate, being the competent authority, the sanction for prosecution was allowed by the District Magistrate. The learned State counsel has further submitted that the sanction order was attached along with the report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and the Reader to the District Magistrate, Bhiwani was cited as a witness in the list of witnesses attached with the challan as sanction, being a public document, can be formally proved by the Reader of the District Magistrate.
4. Learned State counsel has further submitted that on 31.10.2017, without there being any application by the respondent-accused or any request by the State, the ACJM, Bhiwani suo motu passed the following order :-
"Hence, the name of witness No.9-Reader to District Magistrate is ordered to be struck off the list of witnesses. Instead, the name of Sh. Pankaj. District Magistrate is ordered to be added the list of witnesses. PWs including the concerned District Magistrate be summoned for next date of hearing i.e. 18.12.2017."
5. Learned State counsel has further argued that, thereafter, the said order was challenged before the Court of Sessions. However, the same was dismissed by observing that the order, being an interlocutory order, in terms of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the revision is not maintainable. The State counsel further submit that there would be no adjudication on merits by the revisional Court and as the revision petition was dismissed, being not maintainable.
6. On merits, learned State counsel has submitted that the impugned order is illegal against law and facts and the trial Court without any formal application by the accused or the prosecution has deleted the name of the Reader to District Magistrate, Bhiwani from the list of witnesses and rather has summoned the District Magistrate himself to appear and prove the order.
7. Learned counsel further submit that the sanction order is a public document under Section 74(l)(iii) of the Evidence Act and can be proved by the Reader to District Magistrate, being a public document as per Section 78 of the Evidence Act, which provides that the order passed by the State Government or department of the State Government can be proved from the record of the department. The counsel further submits that a certified copy of the sanctioned order prepared under Sections 76/77 of Evidence Act, can always be proved by production of the original record by the Reader of the District Magistrate and there was no requirement to summon the District Magistrate, and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.Learned State has referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled 'R.S. Singh Vs. U.P. Malaria Nirikshak Sangh and others' 2011(4) SCC 281, wherein it is held that the Courts ordinarily should not summon the senior officials of the Court and such practice should be adopted in exceptional case. In the instant case, since the document is a public document admissible in
The admissibility of a sanction order as a public document and the right to cross-examine the person granting the sanction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a valid sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act is essential for prosecution, and the prosecution cannot sustain in the absence of a valid s....
The mandatory requirement of recording evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. before summoning the accused and the limited nature of the inquiry under Section 202.
Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not apply to offences not connected with the discharge of official duties.
The court's decision was based on the principle that when documents are already admitted in evidence without objections, the summoning of official witnesses may not be necessary.
The wide power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. allows the court to recall witnesses or lead additional evidence for a fair trial and just decision.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that evidence produced by the parties cannot be considered in the absence of pleading, and parties should not be permitted to travel beyond their p....
The duty of the court to ensure fair trials and the quest for truth in criminal proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.