The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed a petition that questioned the correctness of the order of the trial court which refused to receive documents on evidence on record because they were simple, weak, and photostat copies and held that the nature of a document being a photostat copy or its perceived weakness should not be grounds for refusal.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed a criminal petition questioning the correctness of the order of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class in which the learned magistrate refused to receive eight documents that were filed by the accused. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner seeking to prosecute the sole accused which is the petitioner herein under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused had borrowed money and to repay he had issued cheques and they were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds and then the complaint was lodged. The accused filed an application before the learned trial court seeking permission to receive eight documents to substantiate his defense but the learned refused to receive those documents on record.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner addressed the letters to the complainant. So, the letters could not be accused and the accused was in possession of only photostat copies. Without adverting to such an analysis of facts and circumstances, the court simply refused to receive those documents. The two books were refused to be received on the ground that they did not bear the signatures of the complainant though those books were attributed by the accused as against the complainant.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent argued that the documents submitted by the petitioner are fabricated and created for the purpose of this case and they were filed at a belated stage to delay the proceedings and harass the complainant and the documents do not bear the signatures of the complainant and some of the documents are only photostat copies.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that simply because a document is a photostat copy by itself is no ground to refuse to receive the document and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides for primary evidence and secondary evidence. The court stated that the truth or otherwise of the contents of these documents is a matter that should be decided in the trial and not at the threshold of receiving documents.
The court also observed that the approach of not receiving documents on the ground that they did not bear the signatures of the complainant is incorrect since it is always within the power of the trial Court to decide whether such documents without signatures would prove a fact or not. Such decisions could be taken up only when they are brought on record as evidence. Simply because a piece of document is very weak one cannot be a ground to refuse to receive the documents.
The court held that it’s always in the power of the trial court to decide whether the documents on record prove a fact or not. Moreover, the complainant holds full liberty to speak his version of the case concerning these documents when those documents are brought on record. The court also stated that the documents could be taken on record as the trial has come to an end. The court held that the trial court ought to have received the documents and the refusal of the trial Court to receive documents needs correction.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition.
Case Title: A. Kameswara Rao v State of AP
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Saga
Case No.: Criminal Petition No.2798 of 2019
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
