R.R.Prasad,J. - (1.) This application is directed against the order dated 03.03.2015 passed by the Special Judge II, C.B.I, (AHD Cases), Ranchi in R.C. No.48A of 1996 whereby and where under the prayer made by the petitioner Dr. Dukhit Ram, to hold witness Uday Shankar Pathak P.W.585 not competent to prove certain documents such as suppliers bills which is in the handwriting of the petitioner, was rejected.
(2.) The background of the case is that when the C.B.I in order to prove the charges against the accused person facing trial, examining the witness namely, Uday Shankar Pathak P.W.585 for proving certain documents particularly CNC bills, an objection was raised on behalf of some of the accused over his competency to prove those documents for the reason that he was not acquainted with the writing of the accused persons. That objection was rejected by the court holding therein that this objection can be raised at the later stage or even at the stage of appeal or revision over the admissibility of the document which would be marked with objection. That order was challenged in Cr.M.P.No.2620 of 2013 in which plea was taken that that decision of the court in view of the decision rendered in a case of R.VE. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Vishesaraswami & V.P. Temple And Another [(2003) 8 SCC 752] was quite wrong wherein it has been held that where objection was relating to admissibility of the documents, that objection can be looked into at a later point of time but where objection is raised with respect to competency of the person to prove a document that should be raised at the very threshold so that if the court finds that the person is not competent to prove the document, he may give an opportunity to the person to examine the other witness, who would be competent to prove that document.
(3.) In this regard further plea which was taken is that earlier when same issue had been agitated before the court, the court did pass an order on 2.7.2013 to the effect that admissibility of each of the documents will be considered at the time of examination-in-chief of the said witness. Keeping in view the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the order dated 23.8.2013 was set aside as that never appears to have been passed in accordance with law. Accordingly, it was ordered that the matter relating to admissibility of the documents be considered in the light of the order passed on 2.7.2013. In other words, competency of the witness to prove certain document be decided at the time when the prosecution would be seeking to prove certain documents.;