INDRAJEET ROY Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an accused facing trial in S.T. Case No. 36/5 of 1998, has filed this revision challenging the order dated 16.2.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate - cwm -Assistant Sessions Judge, Khurda, rejecting the obligation of the petitioner to call for certain documents. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a similar application before the trial Court on 24.11.1998 which was rejected as not pressed. Subsequently, a fresh petition was filed for the very same purpose which was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 8.12.1998. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed Criminal Revision No. 580 of 1998. The said revision was disposed of by Hon'ble A. Pasayat, J. by order dated 29.1.1999 in the following manner : '5. Another 'petition was filed to call for certain documents filed in this Court in several OJCs. and in several P.S. Cases, i.e., in Bidanasi P.S. Case and Nayapalli P.S. Case and the station diary entries. Learned trial Judge rejected the petition on the ground that similar petition was filed on 24.11.1998 which was rejected as not pressed on 25.11.1998. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the documents are of vital importance and a fresh application shall be filed setting out the details/reasons which necessitate calling for the documents. If such an application is filed, it is needless to say that the learned trial Judge shall deal with the same in accordance with law. The Criminal revision is accordingly disposed of.' Thereafter, a fresh application was filed before the trial Court on 16.2.1999 which has been rejected by the trial Court by order dated 16.2.1999 with the following observations : '.........Another petition was filed to call for documents i.e., Bidanasi P.S. Case No. 113(2) of 97, Bidanasi P.S. Case No. 64/97. Affidavit filed by Anjana Misra on 8.2.1996 against her father, affidavit filed against Lady Police Inspector. Affidavit filed by the parents of Anjana Mishra, Medical Registration No. 2850 dt. 31.8.1998 and S.D.E. Nos. 45 and 52 dt. 3.4.1995 and other documents. C.B.I. P.P. objected to the calling for of such documents. Heard both parties. At the outset it may be stated that similar petition was filed to call for those documents on 24.11.1998 which was rejected as not pressed and again on 8.12.1998 which was rejected by this Court on merit. Filing of the petition to call for documents again and again on the same ground shows that the accused only wants to delay disposal of the case. All these documents came into existence either much prior or after charge sheet of this case. There is no material showing that these documents has any relevancy to this case. So the petition to call for the documents is rejected.' The aforesaid order is being impugned in this Criminal Revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that even though the High Court on earlier occasion had permitted the petitioner to file a fresh petition giving better particulars, yet the trial Court has rejected the said petition mechanically without application of mind by passing a very cryptic order. He has, therefore, submitted that the trial Court may be directed to re -consider the petition. It is, of course, true that prima facie, it appears that the trial Court rejected the petition for calling for certain documents without giving detailed reasons. However, a perusal of the order of the trial Court indicates that the trial Court was not convinced about the relevance of the documents called for and accordingly, the petition was rejected. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court may be directed to re -consider the question, it is better to dispose of the application in this Court, as the very same matter is being repeatedly challenged.

(3.) BEFORE considering the question as to whether the documents called for by the petitioner are necessary or desirable to be called, it would be appropriate to notice some of the relevant provisions. Section 145 of the Evidence Act prescribes that a witness may be cross -examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing without such writing being shown to him or being proved. Such cross -examination with reference to previous statement should be relevant to matters in question. Section 146 of the Evidence Act lays down that a witness may be asked any questions to test his veracity, to discover who he is and what is his position in life or to shake his credit by injuring his character. However, Section 153 of the Evidence Act provides that when a witness has been asked and has answered any question which is relevant to the injury only in so far as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him. Of course, if, the witness answers falsely, he may afterwards be prosecuted for giving false evidence. Section 155 of the Evidence Act envisages that the credit of a witness may be impeached, inter alia, by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted. Section 157 of the Evidence Act envisages that former statement of witness may be proved to corroborate latter testimony. In addition to the provisions contained in the Evidence Act, the provisions contained in Sections 161 and 162, Cr. P.C. are also relevant. A combined reading of Secs. 161 and 162, Cr. P.C. makes it clear that statement of a person recorded by police Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. cannot be utilised for any purpose, save and except for the purpose of contradicting a prosecution witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Such statement cannot be utilised for any other purpose, that is to say, for the purpose of corroborating a prosecution witness, nor it can be utilised for either corroborating or contradicting a defence witness. The necessity or desirability of producing a document called for by the petitioner is to be examined keeping in view the aforesaid aspects in mind.