BEFORE THE HON'BLR HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. 2/IZ-, / 2011 Petitioner Surtidas Manikpuri,S/o Sadhudas, Aged about 62 years, R/o Ayodhya Nagar, Mahasamund (C.G.) nv"x\'*' ..».•-" •^^-"^ '"'-^^5^ versys l^ovv.-^"^ ^%?^^' Respondent Smt. Pushpabai Dewangan, W/o Hariram, Aged about 60 years, R/o Shanker Nagar, Mahasamund (CG) PETITION U/S 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 i^ •<: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BJLASPUR Singje Bench: Hon'bte Shri Manindra Mohan Shrlvastava, j, PETITiONER RESPONDENT Cr.M.P. No.212/2011 Surtidas Manikpuri Versus Smt. Pushpabai Dewangan PETITION UNDER SECTiON 482 OF THE CODE OF GRIwlllNAL PROCgmBE Present: - Shri ManeesR Sharma, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Y.C. Sharma, counse! alorsg wlth Shrl Sanjeey Verma, counsei for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25th of July, 2011) This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner assailing order dated 30/03/2011 passed by the Revisionai Court in Criminal Revision No.56/2010 by which the order dated 22/7/2010 passed by the Magistrate rejecting petitioner's appiication under Section 91 CrPC has been affirmed. 2. Leamed counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is facing prosecution for alleged commission of offences under Section 420 and 465 iPC. it is submitted that for just and proper decision of the case and in order that the truth comes out, the petitioner moved an appiication under Section91 CrPC for production of a very materiai document i.e. Rin Pustika of the deceased-Phuidas, in order to show his innocence. The said appiication was rejected by the iearned Court beiow by recording that ihe applicant does not cieariv state as to the person in whose possession the document is availabie whereas the respondent in her statement made on oath before the Court on 11/09/09 that at the time or purchase of land, the compiainant had received copy of Rin Pustika and the same is stili in possession of the respondent/complainant. It is further submitted that the production of the said document is extremely necessary in order to prove innocence of the petitioner but the learned Magistrate mechanically rejected the application without proper consideration and thereafter, a revision was preferred, which too has been rejected by recording that the respondent has stated that the said document / Rin Pustika is not in her possession and further that it is not known as to in whose possession, the said document is availabie. 3. On the other hand, iearned counsei for the respondent submits that the document of which, production has been sought by the petitioner is not in possession of the respondent. Learned counsei for the respondent submits that in the appiication fited by the petitioner, no specific statement has been made that it is in possession or the respondem. He further submits that the petitioner is oniy making attempt to protract the trial. The iast submission or learned counsel for the respondent is that Patwari has aiso been examined as prosecution witness on 3/2/06 wherein, he has clearly stated that the revenue records pertaining to the land of Phuldas recorded different khasra number and area ihen that which was recorded by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner is facing prosecution ror alleged commission of offences under Section 420 and 465 iPC. The consequences of the petitioner being found gullty for commission of such offences are serious. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to futl opportunity to defend himseif against accusation made against him. The power under Section 91 of the CrPC has been conferred on the Court to ensure amongst other ihings that proper and fair trial is held. Once it is found that it is necessary or desirabie, the power of the Court to summon production of the documents.. or any anything is absolute. In a case, where a person is facing criminai triai, any apptication made by an accused for production of any document or other things, which may afford him a proper opportunity to defend himself against criminal charges, requires serious consideration. While deciding such applications, the Court is required to scruputously examine the necessity or deslrability of production of the document. As far as possible, all attempts should be made to atiow production of all the documents which are necessary for just and fair trial and that may be necessary for the accused to derend himsetf against the criminal charges. 5. in the present case, the respondent has clearly stated on bath before the Court on 11/09/09 in para 24 of its deposition that the iand was purchased by the respondent from Phuldas and at that time, the respondent received his Rin Pustika. It has aiso been deposed by the respondent that the Rin Pustika, which the respondent received from Phuldas at the time of execution and reaistration of sale deed of land, is still in possession of the respondent. The respondent has atso stated about the detaiis contained in that Rin Pustika and has further stated that no reason ean be assigned as to why the Rin Pustika has not been produced. Neither in the repiy to the petitioner's application under Section 91 CrPC nor by way of any additional submission, it has been stated by the respondent as to when and how the respondent iost the document, after the date, her statement was recorded. This shows that the respondent is avoiding to produce the reievant document which is necessary to the petitioner to prove his innocence. This aspect of the matter has not been dealt with by the Courts below. The learned Revisionat Court has mechanicaily accepted the baid statement made by the respondent without making any enquiry on the face of the statement on oath made bythe respondent before the Court on 11/09/09. 6. In view ofthe aforesaid circumstances, interference ofthis Court has become necessary in order to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, this petition is ailowed. The orders passed bythe Courts below are set aside. The petitioner's appjication under Section 91 CrPC is ailowed. The learned trial Court shall pass appropriate ordera with regard to production of Rin Pustika from the possession of the respondent and shail proceed with the trial in accordance writh iaw. Sd/- ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge Deepii