Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 1164
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rajendra Mahajan, J.
Jaideep Singh Munda - Petitioner
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
M. Cr. C. No. 16921 of 2016
Decided On : 05-10-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sushil Kumar Tiwari
For the Respondent: Y. D. Yadav
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act in allowing the production of documents in secondary evidence.
Headnote:
Section 65 - Indian Evidence Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, allowing the applicant to produce documents in secondary evidence and the criteria for admitting documents as secondary evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, aggrieved by the disallowance of his application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act in a trial where he was facing charges under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code for criminal breach of trust.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant's case fell under the case/clause 'a' of Section 65 of the Act, and the trial Judge erred in rejecting the application. The court allowed the application and permitted the production of documents in secondary evidence, subject to proving them in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of documents as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and the trial Judge's decision to dismiss the applicant's application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and the specific case/clause 'a' under which the applicant's application was found to be covered.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the applicant was permitted to produce documents in secondary evidence. The trial Judge was directed to summon prosecution witnesses for being crossed on the documents, if required, at the State expenses.
ORDER :
Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Y. D. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally at the motion stage itself.
2. The applicant has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by an order dated 27-7-2016 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge Umaria (Smt. Krishna Parste) in Sessions Trial No. 76/13 titled State of M.P. through Police Station Kotwali Umaria vs. Jaideep Singh Munda, whereby his application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short “the Act”) is disallowed.
3. The short facts of the case for just and proper disposal of the petition are that the applicant is facing trial under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code in the Sessions Case upon the accusation that when he was posted as Junior Data Entry Officer in the Revenue Inspectors Training School Umaria (for short “the school”), he was also the In-charge of the “computer section” of the school. In May 2012, he dishonestly misappropriated or disposed of ten central processing units (for short “the CPUs”) of the computers worth around Rs. 55,000/- and thus he has committed an offence of criminal breach of trust by public servant. The prosecution against the applicant has been initiated upon the written FIR dated 6-8-2012 lodged by the then Principal of the school D. S. Kakodia.
4. In the course of trial of the case on behalf of the applicant, an application under Section 65 of the Act has been moved before the learned trial Judge. The sum and substance of the application is that upon the oral instructions of D. S. Kakodia, the applicant had initiated proceedings for repairing of the CPUs of the school vide note-sheet dated 2-3-2012 in an official file bearing No. 4/2011. In the file, D. S. Kakodia ordered to call for quotations for the repairing of the CPUs. Later, he admitted the quotation submitted by Aditya Sharma of Global Sistech Manpur. Thereupon, the applicant handed over the CPUs to Aditya Sharma for repairs. Aditya Sharma had not returned the CPUs after a long time. Thereupon, he brought this fact to the notice of D. S. Kakodia, who in turn, sent a written report dated 11-5-2012 to the SHO Police Station Umaria (Annexure A-1) requesting him to lodge a criminal case against Aditya Sharma for dishonest misappropriation or disposal of the CPUs. However, the police did not act upon the written report of him. In the meantime, D. S. Kakodia called for the file pertaining to the repairing of the CPUs, which was by now in the possession of the applicant. Having smelled a rat, he took photographs of the relevant documents of the file. Thereafter, D. S. Kakodia lodged the written FIR dated 6-8-2012 against him at Police Station Umaria holding him responsible for dishonest misappropriation or disposal of the CPUs. At the same time, a departmental inquiry is also initiated against him in which he has sought certain documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Thereupon, the principal of the school informed him vide letter dated 2-7-2012 (Annexure A-3) that relevant file is not available in the office. Hence, it is not possible to give him copies of the documents which he has sought for, whereas D. S. Kakodia had already taken the file from him. In support of the application, the applicant has filed his own affidavit. On the basis of averments made in the application, it is prayed by the applicant that he be permitted to produce the photographs of the relevant documents annexed with the application as secondary evidence to prove his defence.
5. Having heard the arguments raised on behalf of the parties, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the application vide the impugned order holding that in Section 65 of the Act seven cases are enumerated when documents of a party of the case may be admitted as secondary evidence but the applicant's case does not fall under any o
