RAJESH MAHADEV KUNTE Vs. RAHUL RAJEEV GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 10th September 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiwandi, Mumbai, below Exhibit 61 in Summary Criminal Case No. 2425/2014, by which the learned Judge rejected the petitioner's (original complainant's) application seeking to exhibit the transcript copy of the respondent No. 1's speech under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C').

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner (original complainant) states that pursuant to the criminal complaint instituted by the petitioner, in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiwandi, Mumbai, process was issued as against the respondent No. 1. He submits that the petitioner had filed the said criminal complaint relying on a CD containing the speech of respondent No. 1, which, according to the petitioner, was defamatory. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order issuing process as against the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 preferred a writ petition in this Court and sought quashing of the said criminal complaint instituted against him. He submits that to the said writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 4960/2014, the respondent No. 1 annexed a transcript copy of the speech (taken from the CD annexed to the criminal complaint). Learned counsel submits that the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court and that the said order was confirmed by the Apex Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, the petitioner filed an application in this Court and sought certified copy of the writ petition as well as the annexures annexed thereto and on receipt of the said certified copy of the writ petition and annexures thereto, filed an application before the trial Court under Section 294 Cr.P.C, with a prayer for exhibiting the said writ petition and the annexures thereto. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 admitted the writ petition and not the annexures, since the annexures were the documents of the complainant. Learned counsel relied on the verification statement of the respondent No. 1 in the writ petition at page 31, signed by the respondent No. 1, affirming the contents of paragraph Nos. 1 to 10 as true and correct. He submits that the affidavit in support of the petition was affirmed before a Notary Public and is a part of the certified copy supplied by the Registry of the High Court and as such, the writ petition alongwith its annexures, can be read in evidence with the aid of Sections 76, 77 and 63 of the Evidence Act. Learned counsel submits that the High Court proceedings being judicial proceedings, records thereof are public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act and that certified copies of such public documents issued under the relevant High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, can be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents under Sections 76 and 77 of the Evidence Act. He submits that the writ petition in question was part of the judicial proceedings and annexures thereto were relied upon by the respondent No. 1, whilst arguing his case, seeking quashing of the proceeding pending before the trial Court and as such, the petition and the annexures thereto, were intended to be read and perused by the High Court, at the time of hearing of the said petition. According to the learned counsel, the writ petition alongwith its annexures form a consolidated pleading, both on facts and law and that the same cannot be separated or segregated when presented in judicial proceedings under Section 294 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the writ petition contains the pleadings based on the annexures to the writ petition and therefore, is an integral part of the "document" and that it also contains the transcript of the speech and that the same has been admitted by the respondent No. 1 even before the Apex Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the certified copies of the record issued duly by the Registry under Chapter XIII of the High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, are therefore, admissible in evidence, in relation to the contents thereof, as mandated by Section 76 and as such, can be tendered as evidence under Section 77 of the Evidence Act. Learned counsel submits that the learned Judge erred in not considering that the certified copy of the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 in this Court alongwith its annexures was one composite "public document" and as such, ought to have exhibited the entire writ petition alongwith its annexures under Section 294 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel relied on the judgments in the cases of Md. Akbar and Anr. v. State of A. P., 2002 Cri.L.J. 3167, J. Shiva Shankar v. Deputy Superintendent of Police and Ors., 2002 Cri.L.J. 3168 and K. K. Manchanda & Anr. v. SD Technical Services P. Ltd., RA 320/2008 in CM (M) 1205/2007 dated 1/7/2009.