JETHANAND Vs. STATS OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON may 5, 1964, the petitioner Jetha Nand made a complaint against Kanhaiyalal and Gidumal in the court of the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate Ajmer City (East), under sec. 381 and 411. I. P. C. The allegations in the complaint were that Kanhaiyalal was once the complainant's clerk. During the period of his service he stealthily removed certain documents, mentioned in the complaint, from the possession of the complainant and he thus committed a theft. The complainant came to know of this fact when Kanhaiyalal was examined in a civil suit (No. 40 of 1961) in the court of Civil Judge. Ajmer. In that case, it is alleged, Kanhaiyalal admitted of his having removed the petitioner's documents and having deposited the same with other accused Gidumal. Thereafter both Kanhaiyalal and Gidumal, with a view to harass the petitioner, conspired and transferred the stolen documents to the Income-Tax Department. The two accused requested the Income-Tax Depart-ment for handsome reward in lieu of the production of the petitioner's documents. In the course of trial, Je-ha Nand submitted an application on October 15, 1965, to the Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Ajmer City (East), to ask the Income-Tax Officer, A Ward, Ajmer, to produce the documents along with all the letters in original addressed by Kanhaiyalal and Gidumal. This application was allowed on December 15, 1966. ON January 10, 1969, the documents in question were produced before the Magistrate in a sealed cover along with a letter from the Commissioner, Income-Tax, Jaipur, claiming privilege under sec. 124 of the Evidence Act in respect of the documents including the letters addressed to him by Kanhaiyalal and Gidu Mal. The petitioner opposed the claim of privilege and submitted that there was no occasion for claiming the same in a criminal trial and requested the court to examine the documents and decide whether the Income-Tax Department was entitled to claim the privilege in question. The court, by its truncated order, held that the adjustment journal could only be produced and that the letters addressed to the Commissioner, Income-Tax, Jaipur, by Kanhaiyalal and Gidumal, need not be utilised as they were privileged documents. Against that order a revision-petition was filed in the court of Sessions Judge, Ajmer. The same was dismissed by Mr. Ghanshyamdas Gupta, Sessions Judge, Ajmer, by his order dated October 28, 1971.

(2.) AGAINST the above order Jetha Nand has filed this revision-petition. The petitioner submits that in a criminal case the production of letters addressed by Kanhaiyalal and Gidumal, connecting the accused with the crime, is essential and in a case like that no privilege under sec. 124, Evidence Act, could have been claimed by the Income-Tax Department. Learned counsel for the side opposite submits that as regards the question whether privilege should be claimed or not, matter has to be decided by the Head of the Department or the officer Concerned and he is the sole Judge to take a decision. His opinion is conclusive and the court cannot interfere with it.