Delhi High Court
Subrata Brahma vs State on 28 August, 2018
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28.08.2018
+ CRL.M.C. 3389/2018
SUBRATA BRAHMA ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP for the State.
SI Ramesh Chander, Crime Branch.
Mr. Anil Rakhra, Advocate for the complainant.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
28.08.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.M.C. 3389/2018 & Crl.M.A.12274/2018 (stay),
Crl.M.A.12276/2018 (for placing the petition as it is)
1. The petitioner impugns order dated 06.07.2018, whereby, the
application of the petitioner under Section 207 Cr.P.C. for supply of copies
of demand promissory notes has been rejected with costs of Rs.10,000/-
and with an observation that the petitioner/accused has adopted dilatory
tactics to delay the proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the respondent
complainant is alleged to have filed original promissory notes, however,
they were not on record at the time when the statement of the complainant
was recorded. He submits that the copies of the documents were not
provided at an appropriate stage, however, he has now obtained certified
copies from the Court record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the inspection of the record has revealed that the original
promissory notes are now available on record. He submits that in the
testimony of PW1, they have not been given exhibit marks as at the time
when the statement was recorded only photocopies were on record.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant after inspection of
the record concedes that in the testimony of PW1 - the complainant, all the
Promissory notes have not been given exhibit marks. However, he refers to
the statement of PW13 - Sh. M.C. Joshi, the Government Examiner of
Questioned Documents, CFSL, to show that reference is made to the
promissory notes by referring to exhibit numbers. He submits that the fact
that these documents are specifically referred to in the testimony of PW13,
recorded on 05.07.2011, shows that the original documents had already
come on record on the said date and thus submits that the argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents were not furnished to
him is not borne out from the record as the said witness was cross-
examined by the counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel, however,
submits that since these documents have come on record subsequent to
recording of the statement of PW1, he would like an opportunity to
formally tender the said documents in evidence.
4. In view of the fact that the documents are already on record and have
been referred to in the testimony of PW13, I am not inclined to grant any of
the prayers made by the petitioner. However, with the consent of the
parties, the complainant is permitted one opportunity to step into the
witness box to formally tender the original promissory notes in evidence.
The petitioner accused would have a right to cross-examine the
complainant limited to the documents being tendered.
5. In view of the above, the directions imposing costs of Rs.10,000/-,
by order dated 06.07.2018, is set aside. The observation that the petitioner
has adopted dilatory tactics and is delaying and derailing the trial would not
be taken into account by the Trial Court at the time of the consideration of
the merit of the matter.
6. In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear before the
Trial Court on 01.09.2018 for the purposes of recording additional
testimony of PW-1and for cross-examination of PW-1. It is clarified that no
adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner on the said date for the
purposes of cross-examination.
7. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
8. The original record be sent back forthwith to the Trial Court through
a special messenger.
9. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
AUGUST 28, 2018
st
