SIKANDER OSMAN LANGA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is made to orders which have been passed by the courts below i.e. order dtd. 13/4/2018 at Exhibit-63 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nakhatrana in Criminal Case No. 722 of 2011 and order dtd. 22/6/2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch in Criminal Revision Application No. 31 of 2018 whereby the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class was confirmed and consequential has also made a request to de- exhibit the statement exhibited at Exhibits-67, 68, 69 and 71 in Criminal Case No. 722 of 2011.

(2.) The case of the petitioner - original accused is to the effect that the complainant - Dineshkumar Laxmanbhai Parmar in his capacity as District Supply Officer, Kutch has lodged a complaint against the petitioner accused for offences punishable under Ss. 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Public Distribution Control Order, 2001 and also under the Essential Commodities (Licensing to Fair Price Shops) Order, 2005, which was registered as FIR being C.R. No. II-7 of 2011 with Nakhatrana Police Station, Kutch District on 5/4/2011.

(3.) Though, the matter has been filed in August, 2018, no notice was issued and same has come up for consideration before this Court today, in which Mr. Aftabhusen Ansari appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that exhibiting the document in the manner in which the courts below have undertaken is against the settled principle of law and as such, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge both deserves to be quashed. The courts below have failed to appreciate that the complainant came up with the existence of the statements only during the course of his deposition and whether such statements i.e. Exhibits-67, 68, 69 and 71 did not form part of either of the complaint or part of the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer and the same was tried to be produced prior to framing of the charge before the concerned court and as such, these statements were not only after thought, but fabricated documents tried to be submitted by filling up lacuna in prosecution case and as such, before exhibiting the said documents the courts below ought to have appreciated that the same be exhibited in the manner known to law and that having lost sight of, the orders passed by the courts below deserves to be quashed. However, the said statements were exhibited, though they were not having support of any authority of law or provisions sand despite strong objection having been taken again exhibiting the said documents, the courts below did not consider the objection in the right spirit. Hence, erred in exercising jurisdiction having been committed, the orders deserve to be quashed. It has been further contended that the courts below have grossly failed to appreciate that it is well settled proposition of law that the documents upon which reliance is sought to be produced must be brought on record of the case legally, and the documents cannot be proved by mere production, but a witness must be examined to prove the contents of the documents and the best person to prove the said document is the person who signed it. This aspect though was clearly pointed out to the courts below, was not considered and allowed the prosecution to go on with exhibiting the statements. Hence, serious prejudice is caused to the case of the present petitioner. Hence, left with no other alternate, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by way of present petition. Hence, requested to grant the reliefs as prayed for. To substantiate his contentions, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has made a reference to one of the decisions delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the the case of L.I.C. of India & Anr., v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen rendered in Civil Appeal No. 893 of 2007 decided on 16/3/2010 and by referring to paragraph 26 and 31, a request is made to grant the reliefs as prayed for. No other submissions have been made.