Departmental Findings Can't Substitute Primary Evidence In Criminal Trial: Delhi High Court Discharges Process Server In Forged Summons Case

The Delhi High Court has discharged a process server who was accused of fabricating a false service report to facilitate an ex parte divorce, holding that the material on record did not disclose "grave suspicion" against him to justify framing of charges.The Court ruled that findings in departmental proceedings cannot be elevated to substantive evidence in a criminal case, nor can prosecution be founded on oral assertions regarding a document that was never seized or produced before the Court.Justice Amit Mahajan allowed the revision petition filed by Narender Singh, a process server, challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's (ASJ) order, which had set aside the Metropolitan Magistrate's order of discharge for offences under Section 193 IPC (Punishment for false evidence).The prosecution's case was that the petitioner, while posted as a Process Server in the Nazarat Branch of Tis Hazari Courts, inserted the word 'Saket' (in different handwriting and ink) on the original summons issued by a Jaipur Court, marked the summons to himself to enable self-marking of the process and instead of effecting personal service on the complainant-wife, handed over the summons to the husband (Pankaj).It was alleged that the husband obtained her signature fraudulently. The petitioner thereafter allegedly prepared and submitted a false service report to the court recording due service upon the Complainant. As a consequence, an ex parte divorce decree was passed against the complainant in 2002.Notably, the investigating agency had initially filed a supplementary chargesheet giving a "clean chit" to the Petitioner, finding insufficient material to prosecute him.However, the MM disagreed with the investigating agency's conclusion and summoned him. Later, after considering the evidence, the MM discharged him in 2012 on the grounds that the original summons was neither seized nor produced. The ASJ reversed this discharge in 2013, relying on the fact that the Petitioner was found guilty of 'misconduct' in departmental proceedings and that the original records were perused therein.Setting aside the ASJ's order, the High Court found that the material on record did not satisfy the legal threshold of "grave suspicion" required to put the petitioner to trial and observed that the ASJ erred in according "undue weight" to the departmental penalty.The Court noted that the original summons containing the alleged false endorsement was neither seized nor produced."...the investigating agency had failed to seize or place on record the original summons containing the alleged false endorsement. The prosecution thus sought to proceed without producing the primary document which allegedly constituted the false evidence. In the absence of the original summons, the allegation of fabrication of false evidence was rendered inherently fragile", the Court held.The Court clarified that departmental proceedings operate on the "preponderance of probabilities" to enforce discipline, whereas criminal trials require proof beyond a reasonable doubt."The observation that the original records including the original report were called for and perused during departmental proceedings cannot substitute the requirement of producing the document in accordance with criminal law. Criminal prosecution cannot be founded upon oral assertions or departmental findings regarding the existence of a document without the document itself forming part of the record", the Court clarified.The Court further observed that the complainant had admitted her signature and handwriting on the summons in the main trial against her husband (who was acquitted of offences under Section 376/493 IPC)."The trial court therein conclusively recorded that Complainant possessed knowledge of the divorce proceedings and had voluntarily affixed her signatures on the summons...This fundamentally undermines the prosecution's foundation that summons service was falsely reported by Petitioner", the Court noted.Additionally, the High Court pointed out that the ex-parte divorce decree passed by the Jaipur Family Court, allegedly premised on the false service report, had never been challenged by the Complainant within limitation and had attained finality. The Court observed that this acquiescence confirmed she suffered no prejudice from the service allegedly effected by the Petitioner.The High Court held that the learned ASJ exceeded the permissible limits of revisional jurisdiction by interfering with a reasoned order of discharge without showing that the learned MM's order was perverse or manifestly illegal."In the opinion of this Court, in the absence of primary evidence in regard to allegation of forgery, i.e. the alleged forged document, the continuation of trial, only on the basis of allegations and the opinion in departmental proceedings, would be an abuse of the process of Court," Justice Mahajan ruled.Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order framing charges and restored the discharge of the ...

Departmental Findings Can't Substitute Primary Evidence In Criminal Trial: Delhi High Court Discharges Process Server In Forged Summons Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Departmental Findings Can't Substitute Primary Evidence In Criminal Trial: Delhi High Court Discharges Process Server In Forged Summons Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers