Whether release of compensation under motor accident claim can be refused to a woman on ground that she has failed to produce certificate of beauty parlour?

 From a perusal of the award, it appears that one of the claimant named as Arti daughter of Suraj Singh has been awarded one lac rupees towards compensation which had been deposited in a fixed deposit account and is lying with the court below.

6. The release application has been filed with the assertion that the petitioner/plaintiff needs the money for setting up her own beauty parlour as she has sufficient experience of such job. The court below has rejected the release application on two grounds. Firstly that no certificate of having done a course of beauty parlour has been filed by the applicant. Secondly that there is a doubt with regard to the identity of the applicant so as to relate her from the claimant in M.A.C.P. Case no. 592 of 2013.

7. In so far as the first ground for rejection of the application is concerned, suffice it to note that the court below could not have rejected the release application on the ground that no certificate was produced by the applicant, in as much as, the course of beauty parlour is not a certified course. It is a course which is in the nature of self employment and no court can take objection to the applicant's prayer to seek money for her need to get self employed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Writ C No. 39076 of 2018

Decided On: 07.01.2019

 Arti  Vs. Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sunita Agarwal, J.

Print Page

Whether award passed by registrar of co-operative society is executable even though no certificate is issued by him?

That takes me to the second contention urged by Mr. Karmarkar. His submission is that the issuance of a certificate by the Registrar as contemplated by Section 54 of the Act is a step in aid of execution of the award. Barring the bare contention there is nothing to support this contention. What Section 59 requires is, if a party in whose favour an award for money is made under the Act, then either for executing it through a civil Court or executing it through the Collector, a certificate signed by the Registrar is necessary. We are concerned in the present case with the execution through a civil Court and the relevant provision in that behalf is contained in Clause (a). Under that section an order under Section 54 of the Act shall, if not carried out on a certificate signed by the Registrar, be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such Court. The very language of this provision clearly indicates that unless a certificate is granted by the Registrar as contemplated by this clause it cannot be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court. Issuance of such a certificate has nothing to do with step in aid as contemplated under the Limitation Act. The very words used in Clause (a) of Section 59(1) indicates that an award is deemed to be a decree of a civil Court only if a certificate is issued by the Registrar. Even though in the present case the certificate was issued by the Registrar more than twelve years after the date of the award, still such an award is deemed to be a decree only upon issuance of such a certificate and as the present darkhast was filed within a period of less than three years in the year 1970 and the certificate was issued in the year 1969 it is not possible for me to take the view that the darkhast is barred by limitation.

Bombay High Court

Sivaji Ramji Patil vs Jalgaon Fal Wa Bhajipala Vikri ... on 23 November, 1977

Equivalent citations: (1978) 80 BOMLR 519

Bench: R Kantawala

Print Page

When bank statement not bearing certificate as per Bankers' Book Evidence Act can be read in evidence in cheque dishonour case?

The learned Magistrate has
considered the written advise/memo dated 31.10.2009
(Exhibit-12) and a letter dated 02.11.2009 of Bank of Baroda
(Exhibit-13). It has been found that the advise (Exhibit-12)
did not indicate as to which Bank had issued or who had
signed the same. It is found that PW-3, Ms. Violet E Das has
not identified the written advise (Exhibit-12) and she has not 
deposed that the cheque was returned for insufficient funds.
The learned Magistrate has then referred to the evidence of
PW-5, Shri Anil Gaindhar, the Chief Manager of Bank of
Baroda, where the complainant is having an account. This
witness has stated on the basis of Statement of Account
(Exhibit-102), that the cheque was presented for payment on
31.10.2009 and was returned dishonoured for insufficient
funds on 02.11.2009 and this was so intimated to the
complainant on the same day. PW-5, Shri Anil Gaindhar has
stated that Exhibit-13, which is a letter from the Bank
intimating the complainant about dishonor of the cheque is
signed by Shri Kedar, the Chief Manager of the Bank. The
learned Magistrate has thereafter found that both the
Statements of Account (Exhibit-102) indicates that the cheque
bearing no. 510087 was returned dishonoured for insufficient
funds. However, it is held that the statement does not bear a
certificate as required under the Bankers' Book Evidence Act
and thus, cannot be read into evidence.
25. In my considered opinion, this is taking too
technical view of the matter. When the Chief Manager has
deposed that the cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds 
and it was so intimated to the complainant, it is difficult not to
believe the said witness for the reasons as stated by the
learned Magistrate. PW-4, Smt. Saiprithi Shirodkar has also
stated in categorical terms that the cheque was returned
dishonoured for insufficient funds. It is not possible to accept
that PW-4, Smt. Saiprithi Shirodkar and PW-5, Shri Anil
Gaindhar would fabricate a false Statement of Account, only to
help the complainant. Thus, it has to be held that the cheque
was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. The point is

accordingly answered in the affirmative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2013
Mrs. Sulekhabai Yeshwantrao Chowghule,
V
Shaik Vahid Jahangir alias Shaik Vaid,
 CORAM:- C. V. BHADANG, J.
 PRONOUNCED ON:- 7thAUGUST, 2015
Citation;2015 CRLJ 4824 Bom

Print Page

Whether certificate as per S 65B of Evidence Act can be produced at subsequent stage?

 To consider the issue raised on behalf of the petitioners in a proper manner, I pose a question to me whether an evidence and more particularly evidence in the form of a document not produced alongwith the charge-sheet cannot be produced subsequently in any circumstances. My answer to the question is in negative and in my opinion such evidence can be produced subsequently also as it is well settled legal position that the goal of a criminal trial is to discover the truth and to achieve that goal, the best possible evidence is to be brought on record.

19. Relevant portion of sub-section (1) of Section 91 Cr.P.C. provides that whenever any Court considers that the production of any document is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any trial under the Code by or before such Court, such Court may issue a summons to the person in whose possession or power such document is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons. Thus, a wide discretion has been conferred on the Court enabling it during the course of trial to issue summons to a person in whose possession or power a document is believed to be requiring him to produce before it, if the Court considers that the production of such document is necessary or desirable for the purposes of such trial. Such power can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the proceedings before judgment is delivered and the Court must exercise the power if the production of such document is necessary or desirable for the proper decision in the case. It cannot be disputed that such summons can also be issued to the complainant/informer/victim of the case on whose instance the FIR was registered. In my considered view when under this provision Court has been empowered to issue summons for the producement of document, there can be no bar for the Court to permit a document to be taken on record if it is already before it and the Court finds that it is necessary for the proper disposal of the case irrespective of the fact that it was not filed along with the charge-sheet. I am of the further view that it is the duty of the Court to take all steps necessary for the production of such a document before it.

20. As per Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any Court may, at any stage of any trial under the Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall or re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. Under this provision also wide discretion has been conferred upon the Court to exercise its power and paramount consideration is just decision of the case. In my opinion under this provision it is permissible for the Court even to order production of a document before it if it is essential for the just decision of the case.

21. As per Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. carrying out a further investigation and collection of additional evidence even after filing of charge-sheet is a statutory right of the police and for that prior permission of the Magistrate is not required. If during the course of such further investigation additional evidence, either oral or documentary, is collected by the Police, the same can be produced before the Court in the form of supplementary charge-sheet. The prime consideration for further investigation and collection of additional evidence is to arrive at the truth and to do real and substantial justice. The material collected during further investigation cannot be rejected only because it has been filed at the stage of the trial.

22. As per Section 231 Cr.P.C., the prosecution is entitled to produce any person as a witness even though such person is not named in the charge-sheet.

23. When legal position is that additional evidence, oral or documentary, can be produced during the course of trial if in the opinion of the Court production of it is essential for the proper disposal of the case, how it can be held that the certificate as required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act cannot be produced subsequently in any circumstances if the same was not procured alongwith the electronic record and not produced in the Court with the charge-sheet. In my opinion it is only an irregularity not going to the root of the matter and is curable. It is also pertinent to note that certificate was produced alongwith the charge-sheet but it was not in a proper form but during the course of hearing of these petitioners, it has been produced on the prescribed form.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)

SB Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 1218, 1329, 1327, 1328, 1351, 1352, 1353 and 1467/2014 and 131/2015

Decided On: 04.07.2015

Paras Jain Vs.  State of Rajasthan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.

Print Page

Whether trial will be vitiated on ground that statement recorded U/S 313 of CRPC does not bear certificate issued by Magistrate?

The last contention of Mr. Verma is that there has been infraction of the provision of Section 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in recording of the statement of accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C.

16. Sub-section (5) of Section 281 specifically provides that any statement of the accused recorded by a Magistrate or by the Court of Sessions must bear a certificate of the concerned Magistrate or Presiding Judge to the effect that examination was taken in his presence and hearing and that the record contains a full true account of the statement made by the accused. Admittedly in the present case, this certificate is missing from the statement of the accused. Learned Sessions Judge dealing with this question held that this aspect will not vitiate the trial of the accused as he has not been prejudiced or injured by this omission in his defence.

17. There is no dispute that statement of the accused was recorded by the learned trial Magistrate. It is also not in dispute that answers given by the accused to the questions were faithfully recorded by the learned trial Magistrate-. Section 463 of the Code provides that if there is non-compliance with the provision of Section 281 or S. 164 of the Code, it may nevertheless take such statement into consideration, if such Magistrate or Judge is satisfied that non-compliance has not injured the accused in his defence and that such statement was duly made by the accused.

18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the accused was prejudiced in any manner by non-recording of the certificate by the learned trial Magistrate. No injury is caused to the accused particularly when it is not in dispute that statement as recorded by the learned trial Magistrate under Section 313, Cr. P.C. was in fact made by the accused and its authenticity is not questioned' This, irregularity will have no effect on the merits of the case which stands cured by provisions of Section 463 of the Code.

19. The Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gita Ram, 2000 (4) Crimes 21 (SC) : (2000 Cri LJ 4039), observed that the very object underlined in Section 465 of the Code is that if on any technical ground any party to the criminal proceedings is aggrieved he must raise the objection thereof at the earliest stage. If he did not raise it at the earliest stage he cannot be heard on that aspect after the whole trial is over. It is noticed that no such objection was raised by the accused before the learned trial Magistrate. It is not open to the accused to raise such objection at this stage.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Mohan Lal vs State Of H.P. on 28 July, 2003

Equivalent citations: 2005 CriLJ 591,2003 FAJ 572 HP

Bench: K C Sood

Print Page

Whether offence of cheating and forgery is made out against public authority who has issued certificate on basis of affidavit of applicant?

 It is interesting to note here that the applicant has certified about the correctness of address and also undergoing of Kisan Sampat Gavhane operation of vasectomy on the basis of affidavit submitted to him by Kisan. When a person submits an affidavit, as seen from the language of the disputed Form, the authority which certifies the contents of the affidavit to be correct, would normally rely upon the statements made on oath by the deponent himself and this is what appears to have happened in this case. The disputed certificate appears below the so-called affidavit of the deponent by name Kisan and it only states that the information contained (in the above affidavit), to the knowledge of the applicant, is correct. The knowledge of the applicant in such a case would be based upon the record before him and the record would be in the nature of affidavit of the concerned person. Therefore, as stated earlier, it was necessary for respondent no. 1 to have produced in evidence some circumstances disclosing that in spite of bringing to the knowledge of the applicant the fact of non-

existence or non-residence of Kisan, the applicant did not make any amends and claimed amount of Rs.20/-. Had such circumstances been brought in the evidence of respondent no. 1 then only it could have been possible that the unrebutted evidence of respondent no. 1 was prima facie sufficient to warrant conviction of the applicant. Such not being the case, I am of the view that the impugned orders are against the well settled principles of law and need to be quashed and set aside.

Bombay High Court

Uttam S/O Patruji Khobragade vs Shri Omprakash S/O Damodhar Rawat ... on 20 February, 2015

Bench: S.B. Shukre

Citation; 2015(3) crimes 458 Bom

Print Page

Whether xerox copy of certificate is admissible in labour court?

 The Labour Court has, in the case at hand, placed reliance upon a Xerox copy of a certificate allegedly issued by an officer of the appellant- Corporation stating that the respondent was in the employment of the appellant-Corporation as a Conductor between 3rd October, 1987 and 31st March, 1989. While it is true that the Xerox copy may not be evidence by itself specially when the respondent had stated that the original was with him, but had chosen not to produce the same yet the fact remains that the document was allowed to be marked at the trial and signature of the officer issuing the certificate by another officer who was examined by the appellant. Strict rules of evidence, it is fairly well-settled, are not applicable to the proceedings before the Labour Court. That being so the admission of the Xerox copy of the certificate, without any objection from the appellant-Corporation, cannot be faulted at this belated stage. 

Supreme Court of India

Bhavnagar Mun.Corp.Etc vs Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha & Anr on 3 December, 2014

Citation; 2015 ALLSCR166

Bench: T.S. Thakur, R. Banumathi

Print Page