Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a committal proceeding before the Magistrate First Class, Akola, in which the accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code for offences including criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts. The prosecution declined to examine oral witnesses at the committal stage, stating that the evidence was mainly documentary. It then applied to the Magistrate to examine the accused under Section 207A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Magistrate allowed the application, and the accused persons were ordered to remain present for examination. The appellants challenged this order before the Bombay High Court in revision, but the High Court dismissed the application. They then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. A police report was lodged in the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Akola against the appellants and fifty-five others for offences under Sections 406, 408, 409, 120B and 477A Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer furnished copies of documents required by Section 173(4) CrPC. At the commencement of the inquiry, the Public Prosecutor informed the court that the evidence was mainly documentary and the prosecution did not desire to examine any witnesses at that stage. After arguments, the prosecutor submitted an application for examination of the accused under Section 207A(6) CrPC. The Magistrate rejected the objections of some accused and directed them to remain present for examination. The core question was whether in a committal inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the CrPC, the accused could be examined under Section 207A(6) with reference only to oral evidence recorded under Section 207A(4), or also with reference to documents furnished under Section 173(4). A related issue was whether adverse inference under Section 114 illustration (h) of the Evidence Act could be drawn from refusal to answer. The appellants contended that the expression 'evidence' in Section 207A(6) was limited to oral evidence under sub-section (4), and that documents under Section 173(4) were not 'evidence' for this purpose. The State argued that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to examine the accused on the material placed before the court, including documentary evidence. The Supreme Court by majority (Sinha C.J., Subbarao and Shah JJ.) held that the legislature used the expression 'evidence' at three places in Section 207A(6). In the first clause, it expressly referred to evidence under sub-section (4), but in the context of examining the accused 'for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him,' the expression was not expressly qualified, and no implication arose limiting it to oral evidence. The majority reasoned that restricting the meaning would impair the judicial character of the proceeding and prejudice the accused, who might have complete answers to documentary material. The scheme of Section 251A CrPC also indicated that documents under Section 173(4) could not be excluded. The majority further held that Section 3 of the Evidence Act defined evidence as including all statements made before the court and all documents produced for inspection, without restriction to duly proved documents. It was also held that declining to avail the opportunity to explain circumstances at that stage did not amount to refusal to answer and no adverse presumption under Section 114 illustration (h) could arise. The dissenting judges (Hidayatullah and Ayyangar JJ.) held that the word 'evidence' in Section 207A(6) was confined to oral evidence, and that a sharp distinction between evidence and documents in sub-sections (4), (6) and (7) precluded examination on unproved documents. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Magistrate's order directing examination of the accused under Section 207A(6) and (7) CrPC. The decision primarily favoured the prosecution/State.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Commitment Proceedings - Interpretation of 'Evidence' in Section 207A(6) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 173(4), 207A(4), 207A(6); Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 - The question was whether the Magistrate could examine the accused on circumstances appearing from documents furnished under Section 173(4) during a committal inquiry. The majority held that the expression 'in the evidence against him' in Section 207A(6) was not limited to oral evidence recorded under sub-section (4), and that documents referred to in Section 173(4) could be considered, as Section 3 of the Evidence Act includes all documents produced for inspection. Held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to examine the accused with reference to such documents (Paras Not mentioned). B) Criminal Procedure - Examination of Accused - Adverse Inference for Refusal to Answer - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 207A(6); Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114 illustration (h) - The accused could decline to explain circumstances at the committal stage and reserve defence for trial; such refusal did not amount to refusal to answer a question, and no adverse presumption under illustration (h) could be drawn. Held that the scheme of Section 207A(6) is not the same as Section 342 CrPC (Paras Not mentioned). C) Criminal Procedure - Distinction Between Section 207A(6) and Section 342 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 207A(6), 342 - Section 207A(6) only permits examination for explaining circumstances appearing against the accused, while Section 342 allows the court to ask general questions. Held that Section 207A(6) is narrower in scope (Paras Not mentioned). D) Criminal Procedure - Committal Proceedings - Nature of Documentary Evidence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 173(4), 207A(6); Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 - Documents not formally proved may still be considered for the purpose of examination under Section 207A(6) because the definition of 'evidence' under Section 3 includes documents produced for inspection of court, without restriction to duly proved documents. Held that the Magistrate may consider such documents (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether in an enquiry for commitment to the Court of Session, the accused person can be asked to explain circumstances appearing against him only from the oral evidence recorded under Section 207A(4) CrPC, or also from documents furnished under Section 173(4) CrPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court by majority dismissed the appeal and held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to direct the accused to appear for examination under Section 207A(6)/(7) CrPC with reference to documents furnished under Section 173(4) CrPC. The expression 'evidence' in Section 207A(6) includes documentary material referred to in Section 173(4), and declining to answer does not attract adverse inference under Section 114 illustration (h) Evidence Act. The dissenting judges held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to examine the accused without oral evidence recorded under Section 207A(4).
Law Points
- Section 207A(6) CrPC permits examination of accused with reference to documents furnished under Section 173(4) CrPC
- 'evidence' under Section 207A(6) is not limited to oral evidence
- declining to answer during examination under Section 207A(6) does not attract adverse inference under Section 114 illustration (h) Evidence Act
- Section 207A(6) is distinct from Section 342 CrPC
- Section 3 Evidence Act definition supports inclusion of documents.
