P.V. Rajalakshmi vs B.Lakkapagiri Chikkaiah And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 6869 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

P.V. Rajalakshmi vs B.Lakkapagiri Chikkaiah And Others on 8 August, 2024

                                         1



         APHC010336452024
                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
                                                PRADESH
                                                                      [3368]
                                             AT AMARAVATI
                                      (Special Original Jurisdiction)


                 THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST
                   TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                    PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

                     CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5451/2024

Between:

P.V. Rajalakshmi                                       ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

                                       AND

G V Srinivas Rao and Others                  ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

   1. N RAMESH KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

   1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

   2.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quash of the Order dated

18.06.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1102 of 2024 in C.C.No.124 of 2019 on the file of

learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class, Tirupathi District.

2. Heard Sri N.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present petition

is filed questioning the Order dated 18.06.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1102 of 2024 in

C.C.No.124 of 2019 passed by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of

Fist Class, Tirupathi District on an application filed under Section 254 read

with 294 Cr.P.C., seeking permission to receive certain documents as

evidence for the petitioner/complainant in C.C.No.124 of 2019 on the file of

learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class, Tirupathi District.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed

a complaint before the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under

Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the

case reached the stage of trial. During the course of trial, the petitioner filed an

application as he intends to file certain documents, as evidence on his behalf

to prove the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 but the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application on the ground

that filing of the additional documents, without referring in the Written

Statements nor mentioning in the list of documents in the Written Statement

and without assigning reasons for not producing the documents earlier, leave

cannot be granted. He relied on judgment of this Court in Kottakota

Lakkappa and others Vs. B.Lakkapagiri Chikkaiah and others1.

2023 (6) ALT 120

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the learned

Magistrate on a wrong premise that it is a case of civil nature and opined that

Order VII Rule 14 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has to be followed. He lose

the sight of the matter that the trial before the learned Magistrate is a

summons trial governed by the provisions of Cr.P.C., particularly under

Chapter XX Cr.P.C. He would submit that Section 254 Cr.P.C., would squarely

apply to the facts of the case in hand. Section 254 Cr.P.C., mandates that if

the Magistrate does not convict the accused under Section 252 or Section

253, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such

evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and also to hear

the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence.

6. The said provision therefore speak that the learned Magistrate has to

take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the

prosecution/complainant at the time the trial and to protect the rights of the

accused, copies of the said documents will be provided to enable him to

defend his brief and also to cross-examine the witnesses and accordingly.

7. In the case on hand, copies of the said proposed documents were

provided to the accused when the application was filed before the learned

Magistrate and no objection was raised by the accused on the application filed

by the petitioner.

8. But, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application applying the

Rules under Order VII Rule 14A C.P.C., instead of following Section 254

Cr.P.C., and the said order of the learned Magistrate is not sustainable in law.

9. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on

the judgment of this Court in Pattivada Balaji Vs. The State of Andhra

Pradesh in Crl.P.No.1499 of 2020 wherein it is held as under:

"10. Section 254 (1) CrPC., would speak that if the Magistrate does not convict the accused under section 252 or 253, he/she shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence. So, it speaks that all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution be received during the trial. It is an established principle in Law of Evidence that evidence includes both oral and documentary.

11. To arrive just decision of the case, similar provision is there in Chapter XIX relating to trial of warrant-cases by Magistrates, in which Section 242 CrPC is as under:

242. Evidence for prosecution:

(1) If the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims to be tried or the Magistrate does not convict the accused under Section 241, the Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses:

[Provided that the Magistrate shall supply in advance to the accused, the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation by the police.]

(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.

(3) On the date so fixed, the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution:

               Provided   that   the   Magistrate   may     permit     the
     cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until            any
other witness or witnesses have been examined or            recall    any
witness for further cross-examination.

12. Similar provision is also there in Chapter XVIII relating to trial before a Court of Session, in which Section 231 CrPC is as under:

231. Evidence for prosecution:

(1) On the date so fixed, the Judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.

(2) The Judge may, in his discretion, permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross- examination.

13. Section 311 CrPC relates to power of the Court to summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summon, as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined "if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case." This power was conferred on the Court in the general provisions as to inquiries

and trials in Chapter XXIV of the Code. Whereas Section 231, 242, 244 and 254 CrPC relates to the procedure of taking evidence during the trial, conducted by a Court of Session and by Magistrate.

14. Therefore, in my considered opinion, as long as the trial in sessions cases, warrant cases or summons cases is at the stage of evidence for prosecution, as laid down in the above sections, the Sessions Judge or Magistrate can take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution."

Emphasis supplied"

10. Undisputedly, the case pending before the learned Magistrate is for the

offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The

procedure to be followed for trial is that of summons cases as laid down under

Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., Therefore, Section 254 Cr.P.C., is applicable to the

proceedings.

11. This Court in the above ruling held that the Sessions Judge or

Magistrate should take all such evidence as may be produced in support of

the prosecution in the light of Section 254, 242 and 231 Cr.P.C., which

pertains to summons case, warrants case and sessions cases trial

respectively. The only rider to be followed is to see that copies of the

proposed documents shall be supplied to the accused to enable him to defend

his brief. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the learned

Magistrate which was passed on the premise that Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C., is

applicable is not tenable in law.

12. In that view of the matter, the Order dated 18.06.2024 in

Crl.M.P.No.1102 of 2024 in C.C.No.124 of 2019, on the file of learned III

Additional Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class, Tirupathi District is hereby set

aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to follow Section 254 Cr.P.C., to

receive the documents as produced by the complainant, subject to the rider

i.e., providing copies to the accused.

13. The case is of the year 2012 and the complainant is aged about 76

years. Therefore, the learned magistrate is directed to dispose of C.C.No.124

of 2019 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06)

months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

14. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is disposed of.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________ B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J

Date:08.08.2024 Pmk

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

Crl.P.No.5451 OF 2024

08th August, 2024

Pmk