1970 (8) TMI 92 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of affidavits.
2. Admissibility of uncertified copies of documents.
3. Use of statements recorded by a police officer under Section 107 CrPC.
4. Admissibility of the Station House Officer's report regarding the existence of the dispute.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Affidavits:
The petitioner, Pritam Singh, contended that the affidavits filed by Ranjitsingh were not properly sworn by the deponents, thus the Sub Divisional Magistrate erred in acting on these affidavits. The court emphasized that affidavits must conform to Order 19 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, which requires affidavits to be properly verified and confined to facts within the deponent's personal knowledge. The court agreed with the precedent set in Bhair Gir v. Hanuman Prasad, 1968 Raj LW 361, that improperly verified affidavits cannot be acted upon. However, it was noted that no objections were raised by the petitioner at the initial stage. Therefore, the court decided that the defect in the affidavits should be allowed to be rectified by filing fresh affidavits.

2. Admissibility of Uncertified Copies of Documents:
The court observed that the documents produced by Ranjitsingh were copies of entries in public records but were not certified as required by Section 76 of the Evidence Act. According to Sections 59 and 61 of the Evidence Act, the contents of documents must be proved by primary or certified copies. Since no objections were raised initially, the court held that the opposite party should be given an opportunity to produce certified copies of the documents.

3. Use of Statements Recorded by a Police Officer under Section 107 CrPC:
The court addressed the contention regarding the use of statements recorded by the Station House Officer in connection with Section 107 CrPC proceedings. It clarified that such proceedings are not related to the commission of an offense, and thus, Sections 161 or 162 CrPC do not apply. The statements recorded can be used as previous statements containing admissions, which are substantive evidence under the Evidence Act. The court emphasized that the value of such admissions depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Admissibility of the Station House Officer's Report:
The court noted that the report of the Station House Officer regarding the existence of the dispute is not admissible as evidence if not based on personal knowledge. The magistrate should consider this while evaluating the evidence.

Conclusion:
The court allowed both revision applications, set aside the orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, and remanded the cases for further proceedings in accordance with the law and the observations made. The lands in dispute will remain under attachment until the disposal of the proceedings. The petitioner may seek appropriate relief from the magistrate regarding the alleged Rs. 10,000 taken by the opposite party.