AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
During the pendency, of, Case No. 5-IV-2012, titled as Mohammad Tariq vs. Jaspal Singh, the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Urban), Shimla,
pronounced orders respectively appended with the instant petition, as Annexure P-1, and, Annexure P-2. The afore annexures are impugned before
this Court.
Uncontrovertedly, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate (Urban), Shimla, is, seized of proceedings, as, drawn under Sections 145, 146 and Section
107, of, the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 10.10.2017, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned, (i) answered in the disaffirmative, the,
controversy appertaining to the admissibility and readability, besides, obviously the probative vigour, of, certain uncertified copies, of documents,
whereon exhibit marks stood embossed. The effect, of, the afore disaffirmative pronouncements, as, made, vis-a-vis, certain uncertified copies of
documents, whereon, exhibit marks stood embossed, (ii) is, obviously reiteratedly qua hence, the afore documents, under, the orders borne in Annexure
P-1, rather being prematurely construed to be ripped of their vigour, and, sinew, and, theirs being discardable.The afore disafirmative pronouncement,
is, omnibus in its sweep and clout, and, covers, even those uncertified copies, of, documents, though, proven through custodian of the original(s)
thereof, and, whereafter, exhibits marks stood embossed thereon, (iii) whereupon, all the afore uncertified copies of documents, are, inchoately
stripped of their probative vigour, hence rendering them discardable. The afore pronouncement would garner vigour, (iv) only, if there occurred
specific delineation(s) in Annexure P-1, vis-a-vis, certain uncertified copies of documents, being thereat strived to be tendered into evidence, without,
in simultaneity thereof, the custodian of original(s) thereof, hence stepping into the witness box.
However, the afore explicit pronouncement, is, amiss in Annexure P-1, (v) whereupon, the afore disaffirmative pronouncement made vis-a-vis, certain
unnamed uncertified copies of documents, whereon, exhibits marks, may stand embossed, and, in contemporaneity with the custodian of original(s)
thereof, rather stepping into the witness box, being also untenably stripped of their evidentiary worth. The further sequel thereof is that (a) the learned
Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned, has, at an appropriate stage, untenably rejected the probative worth, of, even, those, uncertified copies of
documents, whereon, exhibits marks rather stood embossed, in sequel to the custodian(s) of original(s) thereof, hence, stepping into the witness box,
and, his hence from the apposite originals, carried by him, rather proving the uncertified copies, of, documents, imperatively qua theirs being the true
copy(ies), of, the original(s); (b) the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate (Urban), Shimla, at a premature stage, than, after arguments, being addressed,
upon, the apposite case, has, hence prima facie untenably proceeded to discard evidence, adduced by the complainant, evidence whereof may
ultimately hold some evidentiary worth, and, vigour, imperatively after considering the objections, vis-a-vis, their exhibition, raised by the opposite
litigant; (c) further sequel thereof is qua the complainant's evidence, being prematurely, and, untenably foreclosed. Consequently, the afore
disaffirmative pronouncement, occurring, in Annexure P-1, necessitates it being quashed and set aside.
Be that as it may, the afore orders, occurring in Annexure P-1 were reiterated in Annexure P-2, and, in addition thereto, despite, the learned Sub
Divisional Magistrate (Urban), Shimla, on 10.10.2017, hence, ordering for service being caused or effected, upon, Cws, and, as, made returnable for
16.10.2017, (i) yet, when, on, the latter day proceedings were drawn, upon, the apposite case, he, despite the complainant's witnesses remaining not
served for 16.10.2017, rather proceeded, to, in a post haste manner, and, without application of mind, forbid the tendering into evidence, of uncertified
copy(ies) of certain documents, and, also refused to permit the complainant, to, emboss exhibition marks thereon, until, the afore documents, stood,
verified from, the issuing person/agency. The afore pronouncement, borne in Annexure P-2, is also reiteratedly, ridden, with a grave vice of a gross
fallacy, (i) given the proceedings for ensuring the stepping into witness box, of, the complainant's witnesses, being postponed, for 25.10.2017, whereat
the afore uncertified copies, of, the certain documents, may, ultimately, through, custodian of original(s) thereof, have been strived to be proven, in
accordance with law, for thereafter rendering them both readable, and, admissible in evidence. Contrarily, the afore portion of orders borne in
Annexure P-2, has also forestalled and frustrated, the petitioner's striving, to, tender them, both admissible and readable evidence, vis-a-vis, the afore
documents, with, the further concomitant effect, of, his probable chance of proving his case, being untenably baulked.
For all the reasons aforestated, the impugned orders are ridden with, a, gross infirmity, and, an inherent fallacy, and, are amenable for interference.
Even, though, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate (Urban), Shimla, was enjoined, to, in consonance with the verdict pronounced by this Court, on
12.2016, upon, Cr.MMO No.203 of 2015, to, decide the proceedings expeditiously, and, before elapse of three months therefrom, (i) yet
preponderantly, when, the afore orders impugned hereat are per se infirm, hence, foreclose, the, right of the complainant, to, adduce best evidence, for,
proving his case, (ii) thereupon, the orders impugned hereat, when, for all the reasons aforestated, are, concluded, to, inchoately rest, the controversy,
in, respect of admissibility, and, readability, of, documents, (iii) whereas, the afore pronouncement, was, only enjoined to occur, after arguments being
heard, and, objections appertaining therewith, as, reared by the apposite party, also being considered, (iv) cumulatively, hence, the afore omission,
when has rather gripped the impugned orders with a vice of fallibility, thereupon, the only available mechanism, for quashing the impugned orders, is,
comprised in the petitioner availing the remedy prescribed, under, Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition, is, allowed, and, the impugned orders, borne in Annexure P-1 and P-2, are quashed and set aside.
Consequently, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate (Urban), Shimla is directed to permit the complainant to adduce his evidence, as also, to consider,
in accordance with law, all the documents whereon exhibits marks are embossed, and, further the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shimla is
directed to only after arguments being addressed, upon, the lis, to, thereafter consider the admissibility and readability of all documents, in accordance
with law. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate (Urban), Shimla, on 20th November, 2018. He is also
directed to complete the proceedings within three months, from, the receipt, of, the records. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records, if
any, received, be sent back forthwith.