BHASKER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Satish Trivedi senior learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Sheshadri Trivedi for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.1.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Mau in S.T. No. 20/2006 (State v. Bhasker Singh and another) in Case Crime No. 476/2005 under sections 302/3071.P.C. 3 (2)5 of SC/ST Act and 27 Arms Act, Po lice Station Kotwali Ghosi, District Mau.

(2.) COUNSEL for the revisionists sub mitted that on 17.12.2008 the evidence was closed and 24.12.2008 was the date fixed for hearing in S.T. No. 20/2006 in which the revisionists are facing the trial. He contended that after the evidence was closed at a belated stage, an application No. 317-kha dated 24.12.2008 was filed from side of the prosecution for filing the certified photocopy of the order passed by the District Election Officer/District Magistrate regarding the schedule of the election pro gramme and further the order passed by the District Magistrate under section 145 Cr.P.C. declaring curfew in a particular area. He further contended that the objec tion was raised before the learned Trial Court that adequate opportunity was given to prosecution. There was no question of placing the record at a belated stage from side of the prosecution, hence the applica tion was liable to be rejected.

(3.) FROM perusal of the record includ ing the application moved on behalf of the prosecution and order dated 21.1.2009, it is clear that according to prosecution, since the certified copies of the order issued by the District Magistrate under section 145 Cr.P.C. declaring the curfew in a particular area as well as the order issued by the Dis trict Election Officer/District Magistrate on 26.9.2005 regarding the schedule of election programme were not available, hence the same could not be filed earlier, thereafter since those copies were received by the prosecution hence it was necessary to ac cept the same for just and proper disposal of the case. It is also clear from the order that it was verified from the prosecution that there was communal tension in be tween Hindu and Muslim communities, hence the curfew was imposed by the Dis trict Magistrate and by the order dated 14.10.2005 passed by the District Magis trate. The aforesaid fact would clarify the situation prevailing on the relevant dates. Further the order dated 26.9.2005 issuing the notification regarding the schedule of election programme would also clarify regarding the election held in a particular area. No objection was raised from side of the accused before the Trial Court regard ing admissibility of those documents or those documents were not public docu ments. On the other side, this was men tioned in the application moved by the prosecution, as well as in the impugned order that those public documents were required to be placed before the Court for proper decision of the case. The request was made from side of the prosecution to admit the certified photocopies of the aforesaid orders. Considering the Provision of section 78 of the Evidence Act, filing of certified copies issued by the Head of the Department filed is the procedure to prove the public documents. The application can" be moved from the parties for summoning or recall the evidence and witnesses, at any stage, and that power can be exercised by the Court concerned, if those evidence were relevant and essential for just and proper decision of the case. In the present case, since those orders passed by the Dis trict Election Officer/District Magistrate regarding the notification of the schedule of election programme and the order passed by the District Magistrate for de claring the curfew in the area on a relevant date were found necessary and essential for just and proper decision of the case by the Trial Court. It was mentioned by the Trial Court that for deciding the case on merit, the aforesaid documents would be helpful and in the interest of justice, the prayer was acceptable. Accordingly, both the public documents were accepted on application of the prosecution, hence in view of the afore said facts, it cannot be said that since the Trial Court has not mentioned the exact word mentioned in section 311 Cr.P.C. hence his satisfaction was incorrect. In view of the aforesaid fats and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the im pugned order dated 21.1.2009. Accordingly, the present criminal revi sion is hereby rejected.