Gurdial Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned AAG for the State of Punjab.

The petitioners are accused in criminal case pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. They submitted an application for directing the prosecution of place on record certain documents. The said application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and hence this petition has been filed in this Court.

The documents which were sought to be produced by the accused/petitioners are as under :

1) Stamp papers bearing Nos. 15777 and 15676 of Rs. 3/ each dated 27.10.1993 bearing signatures of Ravinder Pal Singh and Khub Chand, deceased, duly attested by Oath Commissioner.

2) One stamp paper bearing No. 15775, dated 27.10.1993 bearing signature of Ravinder Pal Singh, duly attested by Oath Commissioner.

All these documents are alleged to have been recovered under disclosure statement made by one of the accused, Sada Kaur.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge had rejected the application for ordering the production of the documents on the ground that the documents sought to be placed on record do not find mention in the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. Section 173 of Cr.P.C. mentions the particulars which are to be forwarded to the Magistrate alongwith the report. Section 173(5) of Cr.P.C. is regarding the documents which are forwarded to the Magistrate along with the report.

However, if the accused want certain documents, which are in the possession of the investigating agency, proved, there is no bar under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. for the same. The question might have been different had the petitioners asked for the statements recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of the witness, who was not to be examined. However, so far as the documents mentioned above are concerned, there is no bar for getting them produced and it will then be for the accused/petitioners to see in what manner the documents can be proved.

In view of the above facts, I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in rejecting the application and impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside.

In view of the above reasons, the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and prosecution is directed to produce the documents, mentioned in Para 3 above, in the court.