- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. State Of Haryana .
Summary of Opinion (M.M. Punchhi, J.)
Factual and Procedural Background
This petition, admitted formally and disposed of at the motion stage, arises from criminal proceedings initiated on a police report. The petitioners are partners in a firm who had business dealings with the complainant. The complainant alleged conspiratorial forgery and cheating and lodged a first information report; the matter was investigated and put up for trial as a warrant case.
When the accused (petitioners) were produced before the learned Magistrate and the question of framing charge was to be considered, the accused sought to place certain documents on record to be considered under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, supported by section 294 of the Code. The Magistrate, noting that the complainant was not present and the prosecuting pleader was unable to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents, rejected the petitioners' request by an order dated 3-6-1986. The petitioners challenged that order in the present petition, contending that their right to have their documents considered at the framing-of-charge stage had been violated.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an accused may produce and have admitted documents at the pre-charge (framing-of-charge) stage under section 239 read with section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Whether the learned Magistrate erred in refusing to admit such documents on the ground that the complainant was not present and the prosecutor could not admit or deny the genuineness of the documents.
- Whether section 294 requires the prosecuting pleader to establish communication with the investigating agency/complainant so as to admit or deny the genuineness of documents produced by the accused at the pre-charge stage.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' (Accused) Arguments
- The petitioners contended that their right — described in the opinion as fundamental in nature — was violated by the Magistrate's refusal to admit documents they sought to place on record at the framing-of-charge stage.
- They argued that the documents were essential to be considered while framing the charge and, in any event, could be considered at subsequent stages of the trial if necessary.
Complainant/Prosecution Counsel's Argument
- The learned counsel for the complainant argued that section 294 would be unworkable in practice because admission or denial of genuineness must be put to the prosecuting pleader and not directly to the complainant; if the prosecuting pleader denies genuineness on the ground of lacking communication with the complainant, the Court cannot compel the pleader to establish such communication.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Surja Ram v. Vakil Chand, 1985 (1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 516 | Interpreting section 294 of the Code; it spelled out the efficacy of section 294 in a complaint case where the complainant is usually available in Court. | The court noted the decision as supporting the practical efficacy of section 294, particularly in complaint cases where the complainant is available; it was cited to show the provision's utility in admitting documents without formal proof of signature when genuineness is admitted. |
| Tirathraj Upendra Joshi v. State of Karnataka, 1983 (I) Cr. L.J. 318 | Interpreting section 239 of the Code; it held that the accused's opportunity of being heard includes the right to introduce documents at the pre-charge stage. | The court relied on this view to support the proposition that the accused may introduce documents at the pre-charge stage as part of the opportunity of being heard under section 239. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court traced the procedure applicable in a warrant case on a police report. It emphasised that the trial commences when the accused is brought before the Magistrate and that the Magistrate's initial steps include satisfying himself about compliance with section 207 (supply of documents) and applying his mind to the police report and documents sent with it. The Magistrate may examine the accused as necessary and must give both prosecution and accused an opportunity of being heard.
The court reasoned that the opportunity of being heard conferred on the accused must be exercised under regulatory factors found in the Code, notably section 294, which applies to all trials including warrant cases. The prosecution may support the police report with documents, and those documents must be considered at the framing-of-charge stage. The court found no reason why the accused should be precluded from producing documents at that stage; section 294 contemplates that documents filed by prosecution or accused be included in a list and that the prosecuting pleader be called upon to admit or deny genuineness.
The court observed that documents submitted under section 173 by the prosecution can likewise be put to the accused for admission or denial, doing away with the need for formal proof of signature when genuineness is admitted. The joint effect of sections 239 and 294 is to put the prosecution and accused on an equal footing concerning documentary evidence; procedural technicalities should not permit one side to gain an unfair tactical advantage.
Addressing the prosecution's practical difficulty argument, the court rejected the contention that section 294 is unworkable because the prosecuting pleader might claim lack of communication with the complainant. The court characterised the prosecuting pleader as acting on instructions from the State investigation agency and explained that the prosecution is not an abstract entity but a collection of persons (complainant, witnesses, investigators, prosecuting pleader). The court concluded that section 294 requires the prosecuting pleader to make the necessary communication with investigators/complainant/witnesses so as to fulfil the statutory intent of protecting the accused's right under section 239 to be heard.
On this basis, the court held that the learned Magistrate's suggestion to postpone admission of the accused's documents on the ground that the complainant was not before him tended to thwart the accused's rights. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and issued directions to regulate the trial procedure in the interest of justice.
Holding and Implications
IMPUED ORDER SET ASIDE — The court set aside the Magistrate's order dated 3-6-1986 which had refused to admit the accused's documents at the pre-charge stage on the ground of the complainant's absence and the prosecuting pleader's inability to admit or deny genuineness.
Directives delivered as the operative consequence of the holding (as required by the court):
- The accused's request to have documents introduced at the pre-charge stage shall be accepted conditionally upon the accused preparing a duplicate list of those documents, with brief particulars of each document in the remarks column—unless a form is prescribed by the State Government under subsection (2) of section 294, in which case the particulars must be in that form—and putting the list before the Court.
- A copy of the list must be handed to the prosecuting pleader, who shall be given an opportunity to establish contact with the investigating agency and the complainant or witnesses in order to admit or deny the genuineness of each document.
- Whether a document's genuineness is admitted or denied at the pre-charge stage shall not determine the question of the document's relevancy at the pre-charge stage or at any subsequent stage of trial.
- The court shall have full power to impose costs for vexatious or obstructive adjournments under section 309 of the Code, consistent with the mandate that trials should be held as expeditiously as possible.
Immediate procedural consequence for parties: the parties through their counsel were directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 10th November, 1986.
Implications: The decision enforces the accused's statutory right to be heard under section 239 and operationalises section 294 so as to place the prosecution and accused on an equal footing regarding documentary evidence at the framing-of-charge stage. The opinion does not state that it establishes a novel legal precedent beyond its directions; it applies and relies on existing interpretations of sections 239 and 294 and issues case-specific procedural directions for fair trial management.
M.M Punchhi, J. (Oral):— This petition on formal admission is being disposed of at the motion stage.
2. The skeletal facts sufficient to dispose of this petition are that the petitioners are partners in a firm and had business dealing with the complainant. During the course thereof, some of the transactions appeared to have a shade of criminality inasmuch as the complainant spelled out conspiratorial forgery and cheating. Accordingly, the complainant lodged a first information report with the police. The matter was investigated into and put up for trial as a warrant case. When the petitioners as accused were brought before the learned Magistrate and the question of charge was about to be considered, the petitioners wanted to place on record certain documents for being considered under section 239, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) with the support of section 294. It would be useful to reproduce these two provisions herein;
239. When accused “shall be discharged.— If, upon considering the police report and the document sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.”
“294. No formal proof of certain documents.—
(1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.
(2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.
(3) Whether the genuineness Of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed:
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.”
3. The learned trial Magtstrate took the view that the complainant was not before him and the Prosecutor was unable to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents sought to be placed by the petitioners on record. He, therefore, vide his impugned order dated 3-6-1986 rejected the prayer, which has given rise to the present petition The petitioners contend that their right which is fundamental in nature has been violated for documents which they had sought to be introduced were essential in the first instance to be considered at the time of the framing of charge and in any event at subsequent stage of the trial if the eventuality arose.
4. Undeniably the trial of a warrant case on a police report commences when the accused appears is brought before a Magistrate. The first step to be taken by the Magistrate in this regard is to satisfy himself that the provisions of section 207 i.e, with regard to the supply of the documents mentioned therein, have been complied with. The next step is to apply mind on the police report and the documents sent along therewith. Simultaneously, he has been given the power to examine the accused at that stage as thought necessary and then the prosecution and the accused have also the right to an opportunity of being heard. Now when an opportunity of being heard is conferred as of right on the accused, it has to be seen whether there are my regulating factors in the Code by which such opportunity is to be availed of One such pointer is section 294 of the Code, which is applicable to all trials inclusive of warrant case trials Is is ex facie patent that the prosecution while presenting the police report can support the same with documents and they are required to be considered at the time of the framing of charge. It does not hold to any reason that the accused cannot at the stage produce his documents. This seems to be the reason for such a provisions under section 294 of the Code subject of course to the accused's doccments being genuine. And at that stage the documents sought to be introduced by the accused are required to be included in a list and the prosecutor can be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. This right is hot merely conferred on the accused, but a corresponding rigth is also vested in the prosecution Even the documents submitted along with the report under section 173 of the Code relied upon by the prosecution can be put to the accused and he can be asked to admit or denay the genuineness of each such document. This does away with the formal necessary of proving the genuineness of the document and such document can thereafter be read in evidence without proving of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. The joint effect of the aforesaid two provisions is to put at par the prosecution and the accused so far as the documentary evidence is concerned. One cannot be allowed to score over another by taking shelter in procedural wrangles and tactical gimmicks. Thus, I am of the considered view that the learned Magistrate in suggesting to postpone admission of these documents at this stage on the ground that the complainant was not before him, tended to thwart the rights of the occused to have his documents admitted at that stage so as to be considered while considering the question of charge. Thus, in the interest of justice, it becomes essential to quash his impugned order and regulate the trial by suitable directions.
5. It would not be out of place at this stage to take note of a decision rendered in Surja Ram v. Vakil Chand, 1985 (1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 516 in which while interpreting section 294 of the Code 1 had spelled out the efficacy of the provision in a complaint case where the complainant was almost always available in the Court for the purpose. Another decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in a Single Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported as Tirathraj Upendra Joshi v. State of Karnataka, 1983 (I) Cr. L.J 318, in which while spelling out the intendment of section 239 of the Code, view was taken that the opportunity of being heard by the accused included his right to introduce documents at the pre-charge stage. But here the doubt expressed by the learned counsel for the complainant is that section 294 of, the Code would be unworkable, for the admission or denial of the genuineness of such documents is to be put to the pleader for the prosecution and not to the complainant and if the pleader for the prosecution denies the genuineness of each document put in by the accused on the plea that he is not in communication with the complainant, then the Court cannot compel tire pleader for the prosecution to establish such a communication. Such an interpretation as it appears to me would eat away the very purpose for which section 294 is there in the Code. It has to be viewed in this context that the pleader prosecutes on the instructions received from the State agency of investigation and the complainant's verson is part of the investigation. The prosecution as such is no artificial person, but a bunch of individuals who in the form of complainants, witness, investigators and projectures put forward the offences for trial before a Court of law and the Court takes cognizance of the offence and not of the offenders. Thus, it seems to me that proper reading of section 294 of the Code inheres in it the compulsive nature of communication between the prosecuting pleader and the investigating agency and necessarily of the complainant & witnesses. This duty enjoined upon the prosecuting pleader can only be discharged by establishing a communication so as to further the intendment of law and the protection of the right of the accused conferred under section 239 of the Code of the opportunity of being heard.
6. For what has been said above, while setting aside the impugned older, it is directed as follows;—
(i) The request of the accused in have documents introduced at the pre-charge stage shall be accepted conditionally on his firstly preparing a duplicate list thereof and in the remarks column mentioning a brief particulars of each document, unless there is a form which is prescribed by the State Government, under sub-section (2) of section 294 of the Code, and in that case these particulars be in that form and then putting the same before the Court.
(ii) Thereafter a copy of the list shall be handed over to the prosecuting pleader and he shall be given an opportunity to establish contact with the investigating agency and the complainant or witnesses in order to admit or deny the genuinenss of each such document.
(iii) The admitted or denied genuineness of each such document shall not have the effect of determining the question of relevancy of each document at the pre-charge stage or at any subsequent stage; and
(iv) the court shall have full power to impose costs for vexatious and obstructive adjournments under section 309 of the Code, the mandate of which is that trial should be held as expeditiously as possible.
7. The parties through their counsel are directed to put in appearance before the learned Magistrate on 10th November, 1986.
Alert