Begj Raj vs State Of U.P.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3386 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 50
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3009 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Begj Raj
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Rajeev Sisodia
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Adavocate
 

 
Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J. 

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This revision is directed against the order dated 21.7.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Bijnor in S.T. No.281 of 2010, State Vs. Beg Raj, under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, P.S. Najibabad, Distt. Bijnor whereby the application moved by the accused revisionist Beg Raj for summoning Sri Suresh Kumar Arya, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate as a defence witness to prove the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 27.10.2009 was rejected.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that Chief Judicial Magistrate had recorded the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C., which was in favour of the revisionist and the same has got to be proved through evidence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

In State of Madras Vs. G. Krishnan AIR 1961 Madras 92 (V 48 C 28), a full Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the statements recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. are public documents within section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and I entirely agree with the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court and I have no reason to take a contrary view.

The statement of Km.Renu recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. is a public document. The statement was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, a public servant, in his official capacity in due discharge of his official duties and such statement is part of judicial record and it does not require any formal proof by summoning the Magistrate to prove his handwriting or signatures.The application as well as the revision is misconceived.

The revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 2.8.2011

ss