V.G.Rao Advocate (Advocate) 09 February 2013

91 cr.p.c

Hi all, "A" filed a complaint before SHO of Police station under sec 419 & 420 Of I.PC in the year 2006 against "B" stating that in his absence "B" stolen his property documents and by impersonating "A" and forging his signature "B" sold his property to "C" and he came to know about the same in the year 2007 when he visited his property and on search for his sale deed he found missing his title deed from his house and thereupon he obtained Encumbarance certificate form the Registrar office and found that the his propoerty was sold by "B" to "C" by foprging and impersonating "A" and in turn "C" sold Property "D". While matter stood thus "A" Kept silent till 2009 without lodging any complaint against "B for alleged theft of his sale deed and for impersonanting and foging his sginature and filed a complaint against "B" after a gap of two years. The Concern station house officer reigistered the case under sections 419 and 420 of I.P.C and invetigated the case, and during the investigation the IO failed to seize the original sale deed purported to have been forged by impersonating "A" from "C" Or "D" who are purchasers nor their statements were recorded, further IO failed to obtain specimen signature and thub Impressions of "B" to compare the same with the disputed signature on the disputed siganture, further IO failed to examine the sub regitrar and witness thereunder and charge sheet filed and trial commenced , during the trial the said facts were admitted by the IO during his cross examination.
Prosecution evidence closed, and accused did not choose to enter in to the witness box, and defence evidence closed. and matter posted for arguments.

At the stage of arguments the prosecution filed an application U/sec 91 of Cr.P.C on advise of Presiding officer to summon the registar from registration office for the purpose of comparing the thrum impressions of accused in the register by obtaining specimen thumb impressions of accused in the open court and to send the same to FSL expert report.

Now my question is at the stage of arguments, to fill up the lacunas and latches in the prosecutions evidence and investigation of police officer, is it permissible to summon the document under sec 91 of Cr.P.C from the registrar office to compare the thumb impressions and siiganture of accused by obtaining specimen signature of him? if no provide me suitable case laws its urgent.

Reply Follow

1 Replies

Nadeem Qureshi (Advocate/ nadeemqureshi1@gmail.com) 09 February 2013

Dear Mr. Rao

91. Summons to produce document or other thing.

Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed -

(a) to affect, sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers, Books Evidence Act, 1891(13 of 1891), or

(b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.

after persual and reading of this section it is undoubtably, the court have power an din a case Omprakash Sharma v. CBI (2000) 5 SCC the apex court held that Width of the powers is unlimited but there are in built limitations.