Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 40174
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Ziyad Rahman A. A, J
UMADEVI
– Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 633 2022
N.A.SHAFEEK
Documents can only be admitted as evidence if their authenticity is not disputed, as per Section 294 of the Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Evidentiary Issues - Criminal Procedure - Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - This section addresses the admission of documents and requires that documents can only be accepted as evidence if their authenticity is not disputed, influencing the court's dismissal of the petitioner's application to admit a document.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused of several IPC offenses, sought to introduce a certified audit report to prove her innocence, but the prosecution contested its authenticity, leading to its exclusion under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the learned Magistrate's decision to dismiss the application to mark the document in evidence, determining that the authenticity was disputed, therefore the document could not be admitted without following proper evidential procedures.
Issues: Whether the learned Magistrate erred in denying the admission of a certified audit report under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. due to the dispute regarding its genuineness.
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that under Section 294 Cr.P.C, documents can only be admitted if their genuineness is undisputed, and since the prosecution raised objections, the document could not be read into evidence without following the necessary procedures.
Final Decision: The dismissal of the application was upheld; however, the petitioner may pursue the document's admission through appropriate means.
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in C.C No. 786/2007 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate court-II, Ernakulam. The aforesaid case was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 403 , 409, 420, 477(A) and
201 of the Indian Penal Code .
2. The allegations against the petitioner is as follows, the petitioner was the U.D Clerk in Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vailkom, from 11.10.1996 onwards. It was alleged that while she was discharging her duty in the account section of the said Court from 02.09.1997 onwards, she committed a criminal breach of trust as a public servant by manipulating the accounts and other records, thereby making an illegal gain of Rs.35,716/-. It is also alleged that she destroyed the evidence regarding the same. Annexure-A is the Final Report submitted by the police.
3. As part of the trial of the said case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 16 and marked Exts.P1 to P29. Thereafter, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and she sought to adduce defence evidence. As part of defence evidence, she filed C.M.P No. 857/2022, under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , with a prayer to mark a certified copy of the report of the audit conducted in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court for the period from 01.03.1996 to 30.09.2000. The audit was conducted on 18.09.2000. The prayer to mark the certified copy of the said document under Section 294 Cr.PC was objected to by the Public Prosecutor concerned on the ground that the certified copy was not obtained from the Accountant General's Office but the same was obtained from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, where it was kept as part of the administrative functions. The learned Magistrate upheld the objections raised by the learned Public Prosecutor and dismissed the application by holding that as per Section 294 of Cr. P.C, the document produced under the said provision, can be accepted and read in evidence only if the document's genuineness is not disputed. It was observed that, in this case, the prosecutor had disputed the authenticity and therefore the aforesaid provision cannot be made applicable. This order is under challenge in this Crl.M.C.
4. Heard N.A Shafeek, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Sreeja V. the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
5. The contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially petitioner took steps to summon the said document from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court. But, the officer who appeared on the summons stated that the documents were not in their custody. The same was retained with the custody of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as part of an inquiry conducted by him. The certified copy was obtained from the Chief Judicial Magistrate and was produced before the Court in such circumstances. It is pointed out that, the said document would indicate the innocence of the accused and therefore, the marking of the same is absolutely necessary.
6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the said contention by stating that the prayer sought for by the petitioner is beyond the scope of Section 294 of Cr.P.C as the document is a disputed one.
7. I have gone through the records and heard the contentions raised from either side. From the reading of Section 294 of Cr. P.C, it can be seen that the said provision deals with the admission of documents only in the circumstances when the document sought to be produced is not disputed. In this case, the Public Prosecutor has raised a specific objection regarding the genuineness of the said document. Merely because, the said document happened to be a certified copy obtained from the original, the same cannot be read into evidence by marking the same without following the procedure established. Eventough, Section 294 contemplates marking of documents under certain circumstances, and as rightly found b
