The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the sanction order for prosecution falls under the ambit of public document under Section 74(1) (iii) of the Indian Evidence Act which makes certified copy prepared under Section 76/77 of the Evidence Act, admissible in evidence.

The single-judge Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan has in view of the above, set aside an order passed by ACJM, Bhiwani summoning the then-District Magistrate, Bhiwani to appear as a witness to formally prove a sanction order passed by him.

Brief Facts of the Case

An FIR was registered against the accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act and to prosecute him as per the requirement of the Act, a sanction for prosecution was obtained from the concerned District Magistrate, who is the competent authority.

The said sanction order was attached along with the report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and the Reader to the District Magistrate, Bhiwani was cited as a witness in the list of witnesses so that the said sanction order can be formally proved.

However, the ACJM, Bhiwani suo-moto ordered the District Magistrate to appear as witness instead of his/her Reader. There was no application by the respondent-accused or any request by the State to do so.

Aggrieved, the State challenged the impugned order  in High Court with prime contention that anction order is a public document under Section 74(1)(iii) of the Evidence Act and therefore, it can be proved by the Reader to District Magistrate.

High Court's Analysis

The Court after hearing both the parties, cooncluded the below:

(a) Neither there was any application by the accused nor by the State and, therefore, the trial Court was not justified in suo motu substituting witness No.9-Reader to the District Magistrate, Bhiwani with District Magistrate, Bhiwani himself.
(b) The witness No.9, i.e. Reader to District Magistrate, Bhiwani was cited as a witnesses only to prove the sanction granted by the District Magistrate, Bhiwani, being public document. Since the Reader will bring the original record for the perusal of the Court as well as for the defence counsel, who will have a right to cross-examine this witness for the reasoning given in the order and material available on record forming basis of granting sanction there is no justification in summoning the District Magistrate himself.
(c) Even otherwise the sanction order is a public document under Section 74(1) (iii) of the Indian Evidence Act and the certified copy prepared of under Section 76/77 of the Evidence Act, is admissible in evidence.
(d) Even otherwise, if the prosecution do not opt to cite District Magistrate himself as a witness, it will give a benefit of doubt to the accused and defence can always raise an objection that no right to cross-examine the person, who accorded the sanction after applying the mind was granted.

Read Order Here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Sheetal Joon