Begj Raj vs State of U.P.

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 v. 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 u/s 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 u/s 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, a full Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the statements recorded u/s 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 u/s 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.