BINOY SHARMA Vs. NAGENDRA NATH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M) in CR Case No. 929/2015, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, praying for setting-aside the impugned order and also for direction to issue notice for production of the original documents.

(2.) The petitioner and the respondent are brothers. The petitioner owns a plot of land at village Kachari Garigaon in the district of Kamrup (M), Assam. As the petitioner resides in his native place at North Lakhimpur, he entrusted the respondent being his brother to look after the said property. Taking advantage of looking after the property, the respondent prepared a forged gift deed in respect of the said land of the petitioner in favour of the respondent forging the signature of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondent which was pending trial before the JMFC, Kamrup (M). In the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner filed an application under Section 66 of the Evidence Act, 1872 praying for issuing notice to the respondents to produce the original gift deed which was in possession of the respondent and also the sub-registrar for production of original thumb impression book, which contained the thumb impression of the parties to the deed.

(3.) Learned JMFC by the impugned order rejected the application of the petitioner citing basically two grounds, firstly, such direction would amount to testimonial compulsion in violation of Article 20 of the Constitution of India so far as the accused/respondent is concerned. Learned JMFC also observed that the petition was filed after framing of charge and in course of evidence and the petitioner did not produce any certified copy of the document, production of which was sought for. Since the petitioner did not produce the certified copy and failed to show any reason for calling the documents, learned magistrate declined to allow the prayer, so far the respondent is concerned. With regard to the prayer for notice to produce thumb impression book, learned Magistrate observed that there was no evidence with regard to alleged forgery and therefore, learned Magistrate did not consider it proper to issue notice to the Sub-Registrar for production of the thumb impression registrar.