IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. M M O No. 144 of 2008. Date of Decision: 17.12. 2008. _______________________________________________________ Gireshwar Tiwari and another. ….Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. … Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?. . Yes. For the Petitioners : M/s Vijay Pandit, Ajay Kumar and Yogita Dutt, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. SURINDR SINGH, J. (oral) The petitioners along with others are accused in F.I.R. No. 162 of 2008 registered under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also Section 25-54/59 of Arms Act in Police Station Shimla (West). After completing the investigation in the case, challan has been put in the Court which is pending for consideration of charge. An application was moved by the petitioners herein, who are on bail, under Section 91 read with Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in short ‘the Code’, for summoning certain documents which was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, they moved another application under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for placing on record the documents mentioned in para 3 of Whether the reporters of the local newspapers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - their application, for its admission and denial precisely with a view to enabling them to address the arguments on the point of charge which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla vide its detailed order passed on 4-12-2008, on the short ground that at the time of framing the charge, the material sought to be produced on record cannot be considered. To this extent, I find no ambiguity in the order impugned because at the time of framing of the charge, hearing the submission of the accused or his counsel has to be confined to the material produced by the Police in the form of a challan under Section 173 of the Code as held in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359 and Bharat Parikh –v- Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 109. However, Shri Vijay Pandit, Advocate duly assisted by Shri Ajay Sood and Yogita Dutta, Advocates, vehemently argued that application under Section 294 of the Code can be moved at any stage either by the State or the accused to admit or deny any document filed to cut short the un- necessary time taken in examining the witnesses and the learned trial Court should have allowed their application for expeditious disposal of the case, so that the time would not get wasted. On the other hand, Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer for the State vehemently argued that the petitioners intend to place on record irrelevant evidence to confuse the matter - 3 - and make the file voluminous. The documents which are sought to be produced have no relevance with the case. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the relevant provisions of the Code applicable in the instant case. Section 294 of the Code reads as under :- “294. No formal proof of certain documents.- (1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved”. The perusal of the above provisions, of course do not specify the stage when a party can move the application for admission and denial of the documents, but the object of the section is to accelerate the pace of trial by avoiding the time being wasted in summoning the signatory of the document filed by either of the parties to prove his signatures and correctness of its contents if genuineness is not disputed and - 4 - this stage comes after the charge is framed. However, there is no harm if any of the party intends to move the application even before that stage. In case, the charge is framed, the party producing the document (s) can make use of the admitted documents during the trial of the case without its formal proof by calling the witnesses. Otherwise also the section makes it amply clear that a document of a formal nature,, the genuineness of which is not disputed, may be proved without any necessary proof of signature, and it requires, for this purpose, each party to produce a list of documents calling upon the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of them. A discretion has been given to the Court to require the signature of any document to be proved. Sub-section (3) of Section 294 above, provides even if the genuineness of the document is not disputed, the Court may require the signatures to be proved and in that case on proof of signatures by the signatory, the document may be read as substantive evidence. Further, this Section, however, is only meant to cover those documents which require only formal proof such as letters, representations, photographs, specimen hand-writing and finger prints etc. but document which is not a substantive evidence by itself and the contents of which have to be deposed by its executant and is required to be tested by cross-examination, can never be tendered in evidence under the aforesaid Section. - 5 - In the instant case, the documents as mentioned at Sr. No.3 (a) to (d), (g) to (i) and (u) are the letters/representations made/received by the office of Director General of Police, Superintendent of Police, Deputy Commissioner and Station House Officer, whereas document at 3 (k) are the original photographs and negatives of the place of incident when the alleged incident had taken place. Therefore, in my opinion there is no harm to allow the petitioners to tender these documents for admission-denial as per the provisions of Section 294 of the Code. In so far as the certified copies of the Court orders as mentioned in 3(e) and (f) are concerned, these are perse admissible, but the copies of the show cause notices issued by the Company to the various employees as mentioned in para 3 (l) to (t) and the newspaper cuttings as mentioned in 3 (v) cannot be allowed to be produced for the purpose of admission/denial to the respondent-State as these were exchanged between the company and its employees and news-papers cuttings neither carries any presumption nor any of the party legally can take its benefit in the matter. Therefore, in view of the above, the petitioners are hereby allowed to place on record the documents as mentioned in para 3 (a) to (d), (g) to (i), (k) and (u) for the purpose of admission-denial by the State and qua other documents, the prayer is declined. However, it is made clear that the above material allowed to be produced cannot be considered at the stage of charge by the learned trial Court. - 6 - Thus the order of the learned trial Court is modified to the above extent. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (Surinder Singh) Judge. December 17, 2008. (bm) - 7 -