Skip to content


In Re: Premchand Dowlatram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1888)ILR12Bom63
AppellantIn Re: Premchand Dowlatram
Excerpt:
.....section 174 - production of document--court's jurisdiction to punish a witness for refusing to produce a document--procedure--indian penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 175--criminal procedure code (act x of 1882), section 480. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para..........has fined the applicant rs. 75 for not producing a document which he had been summoned to produce. the applicant came to the court, but then stated on oath that he had not the document, and could not produce it. thereupon the judge disbelieving this statement fined him ostensibly under the provisions of section 174 of the code of civil procedure. a careful perusal of that section, however, shows that the present case did not fall within it. the jurisdiction to punish under the enactment exists only in the case of a witness, who, not having attended on summons, has been arrested and brought before the court. the case of a witness who, having a document, will not produce it, is provided for by section 175 of the indian penal code, and a limited summary jurisdiction is given to the.....
Judgment:

West, J.

1. In this case the Judge of the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad has fined the applicant Rs. 75 for not producing a document which he had been summoned to produce. The applicant came to the Court, but then stated on oath that he had not the document, and could not produce it. Thereupon the Judge disbelieving this statement fined him ostensibly under the provisions of Section 174 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A careful perusal of that section, however, shows that the present case did not fall within it. The jurisdiction to punish under the enactment exists only in the case of a witness, who, not having attended on summons, has been arrested and brought before the Court. The case of a witness who, having a document, will not produce it, is provided for by Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code, and a limited summary jurisdiction is given to the Court in such a case by Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (X of 1882). The mere provision of this mode of procedure by the Legislature implies that another and different one is not intended to be followed; and if the Judge of the Small Cause Court could fine a witness attending his Court under Section 174 of the Code of Civil procedure, he would deprive him of the appeal given by the law against a similar decision under section. 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Where a witness denies, on oath, that he has the possession or means of producing a particular document, he can, if he has been guilty of falsehood, be prosecuted for giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding.

2. We reverse the order as made without jurisdiction, and direct that the fine paid by the applicant be restored to him.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //