Jharkhand High Court
Ramakant Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 January, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 1046 of 2024
Ramakant Singh, s/o late Ram Lakhan Singh, age-56 years, r/o-
3A Silver Kunj, Patel Nagar, Road No.6, P.O.-Hatia, P.S.-
Jagannathpur, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rabindra Kumar, s/o Ramadhin Mandal, r/o-2/38, New
Area, Gandhi Nagar, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-
Ranchi
.... Respondents
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Advocate
: Ms. Shreesha Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate
: Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Paritosh Rai, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. SC I
: Mr. Aditya Kumar, AC to Sr. SC I
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the
order dated 12.11.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 3285 of 2020
by which the petition under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. filed by the
complainant has been allowed.
3. The brief fact of the case is that on 24.09.2024 the complainant
filed an application purportedly having been filed under Section
294 of Cr.P.C. to mark the certified copy of the agreement dated
03.10.2019, the original of which was filed in Complaint Case No.
3201 of 2020, as an Exhibit in Complaint Case No. 3285 of 2020.
The writ petitioner who is the accused person of the said case
objected to the prayer. The photocopy of the said agreement was
marked 'Y' for identification during the examination of
complainant as P.W.1.
4. The learned J.M.F.C.-XXIV, Ranchi considered the settled
principle of law that merely because a document has been marked
exhibit, the same cannot be termed as evidence in any case and if
any document is tendered with objection such document is to be
marked with objection and the evidentiary value of such
document marked with objection is to be considered at the time
when the judgment is passed in the case concerned and
considering the same, the certified copy has been ordered to be
marked Ext.P-7 but it has not been specifically mentioned in the
order dated 12.11.2024 that the same was marked P-7 with
objection.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by
relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Full Bench of Karnataka
High Court in the case of Boraiah @ Shekar vs. State by
Ramanagaram Police reported in ILR 2003 KAR 368 that since
Section 294 Cr.P.C. only dispense with the formal proof of a
document when the genuineness of which is not disputed by the
other side and the consequence of such dispensing the formal
proof of document is that such document be read in evidence
hence, the learned J.M.F.C.-XXIV, Ranchi committed a grave
illegality by allowing the prayer of the respondent no.2 made in
the said petition dated 24.09.2024. It is therefore submitted that
the said order be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 on the other hand submits that nowhere in the
impugned order the learned J.M.F.C.-XXIV, Ranchi has stated that
the certified copy of the agreement be read in evidence and it
being a settled principle of law that any document which is
tendered by a party cannot be thrown out and it also being a
settled principle of law that merely because a document has been
marked that does not imply that the contents of the document is
to be read in evidence; unless the contents of the same are duly
proved in accordance with law, therefore, no illegality has been
committed by the learned J.M.F.C.-XXIV, Ranchi. Hence, it is
submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be
dismissed.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent
to mention here that it is a settled principle of law, as has been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sait
Tarajee Khimchand & Ors. vs. Yelamarti Satyam & Ors.
reported in AIR 1971 SC 1865 that mere marking of an exhibit
does not dispense with the proof of a document.
8. It is also a settled principle of law that the practice of exhibiting
of documents or marking them as exhibit has evolved merely out
of customary practice and is without any legal support.
9. In view of the settled principle of law as discussed above, since it
is apparent from the impugned order dated 12.11.2024, that the
learned J.M.F.C.-XXIV, Ranchi was conscious of the settled
principle of law, therefore, it has only marked the document is
exhibit but not passed any express order that the same be read in
evidence, so, no illegality has been committed by the learned
J.M.F.C.-XXIV, Ranchi in document and exhibit. But certainly the
learned J.M.F.C.-XXIV, Ranchi apparently and inadvertently has
failed to mention that the certified copy produced by the
complainant was marked Ext.P-7 with objection and such an entry
ought to have been made in the prescribed exhibit list of the
documents, which has the column "whether the document has
been marked with objection or without objection".
10. Under such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with
the observation that marking of the agreement as Ext. P-7 does not
dispense with the proof of the document nor such prayer has been
made in the petition dated 24.09.2024 filed by the complainant
purportedly under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. nor such express order
has been passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-XXIV, Ranchi.
11. The learned J.M.F.C.-XXIV, Ranchi is directed to enter the word
"with objection" in respect of Ext. P-7 in the relevant column of
the exhibit list, if not already made and it be treated that Ext.P-7
has been marked with objection and the evidentiary value of such
document is to be considered at the time when the judgment is to
be pronounced in the Complaint Case No. 3285 of 2020 by the
learned J.M.F.C.-XXIV, Ranchi.
12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent
only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 3rd January, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
