JAYASHREE TIWARI,J. - (1.) THE present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order of the learned lower court dated 27.11.2003 and 12.1.2004 rejecting the application of the revisionist whereby he has prayed that it is necessary to compell the three signatures available in the record of the R.T.O. and for that purpose some expert be permitted to obtain the photographs of those signatures so that accused may submit his defence before the criminal court as to whether the Nand Lal Maurya has sold the motorcycle to accused Rama Shanker Singh or not, and has prayed for permission to allow the expert to obtain three signatures in the record of the R.T.O. and to examine the same. Apparently, a bare perusal of the file shows that the case pending before the learned lower court is a criminal case, relating to offence under Sections 380 and 411 IPC, which is an offence of theft a dwelling house and the recovery of the stolen property. The jurisdiction of the criminal court is confined merely to decide whether any offence under Section 380 and 411 IPC has been committed by the accused persons as alleged or not.
(2.) THE question of selling and purchasing of the alleged stolen motorcycle by the applicant/ revisionist and another co-accused is not the matter of dispute before this Court nor there is any allegation of any offence of forgery in which such an application can be permitted. Learned counsel for the revisionist referred to the provision of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) IT will be appropriate to go through the provisions of Section 243 Cr.P.C. which lays as follows: (1) The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence; and if the accused puts in any written statement, the Magistrate shall file its with the record. (2) If the accused, after he has entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be recorded by him in writing. Provided that, when the accused has cross-examined or had the opportunity of cross-examining any witness before entering on his defence, the attendance of such witness shall not be compelled under this Section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice. (3) The Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on an application under sub-Section (2), require that the reasonable expenses incurred by the witness in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court. A bare perusal of the Section 243 Cr.P.C. shows that the accused can produce any evidence in his defence, it is also provided that the accused may request the Magistrate for ensuring the attendance of any witness for examination or cross-examination in his defence, but in the instant case, the accused wants the help of the court to get a finding of title or genuineness of the sale and purchase of the motorcycle which is admittedly a looted property. As is apparently clear from the order of learned lower court, the Magistrate has clearly held in his order that if he will record any finding then it may not be admissible in evidence because the matter as prayed by the applicant/ revisionist pertains to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court on adjudicating the genuineness of the title of a motor vehicle property. Apparently, the prayer as advanced in the application dated 2.12.2003 is not within the scope and jurisdiction of the criminal court as covered under Section 243 Cr.P.C., the applicant/ revisionist may himself approach the appropriate authority, may be the Civil Court or the Transport Department and himself obtain a certificate of title in respect of the vehicle as alleged and has liberty to file the same before the criminal court in his defence but he cannot compell the criminal court to enquire into the validity of the title by allowing expert to examine and take photographs of the signatures and then to give a finding, as to whether the signatures of the seller as alleged are genuine or not. ;