M/S. Alphine Pharmaceuticals ... vs B.Manohar Reddy And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 98 Tel

                THE HON'BLE JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.8256 of 2019
ORDER:

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2019 in

Crl.M.P.No.5383 of 2019 in C.C.No.116 of 2016 passed by the

XI Special Magistrate at Erramanzil, Hyderabad, the petitioners

herein filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to

quash the said order.

The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C.No.116 of

2016. The offence alleged against the petitioners herein is under

Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The

petitioners herein has filed an application under Section 311

Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.No.5383 of 2019 in C.C.No.116 of 2016

seeking permission of the Court below to lead secondary evidence

and exhibiting some other documents in defense evidence. In the

said application, the petitioners herein have contended that the

orders in Crl.M.P.No.2946 of 2019 dated 09.07.2019 filed under

Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Crl.M.P.No.4128 of 2019 dated

03.09.2019 filed under Section 315 Cr.P.C. do not bar/prohibit the

petitioners-accused from leading secondary evidence and

exhibiting some other documents in defense evidence. The

respondent-complainant has filed objections to the said petition by

contending that the main Calendar Case is posted for continuation

of chief-examination of D.W.1. At that particular stage, the

petitioners herein have filed an application under Section 311

Cr.P.C. The relief sought in the said petition is beyond the scope of

the orders passed in Crl.R.P.No.32 of 2019 by the learned VII

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated

04.04.2019. The petitioners are trying to protract the case by filing

false and frivolous applications. With the said objections, the

respondent-complainant sought to dismiss the said application.

By order dated 12.11.2019, the learned Magistrate has

dismissed the said application on the ground that the

petitioners/accused did not specify as to which documents they

intend to lead secondary evidence so also as to which of the other

documents they intend to get exhibited on their defence. They have

also not filed any documents along with the present petition nor

whispered a word specifying the documents which they intend to

file as secondary evidence. It is held by the learned Magistrate that

the petitioners did not specify as to which some other documents

they intended to be exhibited on their behalf in their defence in the

present case. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said

application vide order dated 12.11.2019 by holding that the relief

sought by the petitioners is vague, clumsy and lacks clarity and so

also it is also not specific.

A perusal of the relief sought in the petition filed under

Section 311 Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.No.5383 of 2019 would reveal

that the petitioners herein have stated that the orders dated

09.07.2019 in Crl.M.P.2946 of 2019 filed under Section

311 Cr.P.C. and the order dated 03.09.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.4128 of

2019 filed under Section 315 Cr.P.C. do not bar/prohibit the

petitioners/accused from leading secondary evidence and

exhibiting some other documents in defence evidence. Except that

one sentence, there is no other pleading. They have not mentioned

the documents which they sought to exhibit or mark through the

evidence.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

documents sought to be marked are part of the record. But in the

petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the petitioners did not

specify with regard to the documents sought to be marked as

secondary evidence and it is also not mentioned in the said

application that the said documents which the petitioners intend

to mark as secondary evidence is part of the record. As rightly

held by the learned Magistrate that the contents of the petition

filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are vague. The details of the

documents are not mentioned. The reasons for filing the

application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are also not mentioned.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the principle

laid down by this Court in a decision reported in SYED WASIF

HUSSAIN KHAN V/s. STATE OF TELANGANA1. In the said case,

at para 10, it is specifically mentioned that in the complaint itself,

the complainant/petitioner has shown the Branch Manager , State

Bank of India, Sripuram, Malakpet, Hyderabad, as a third witness.

By referring the same, this Court has allowed the application filed

under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Whereas in the present case, the

petitioners herein did not mention specifically the details of the

documents and the contentions. Therefore, the principle laid down

in the above said case is not applicable to the facts of the present

case.

Both the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the

learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the main

Calendar Case is of the year 2016 and it is posted for judgment

2020(2) ALD (Crl.) 1040 (TS)

tomorrow. Though the petitioners herein have filed the present

criminal petition in the month of December, 2019, they have not

pursued the matter and when the main calendar case is posted for

judgment tomorrow before the lower Court, they made a mention

today. As stated above, the petitioners herein without mentioning

the details of the documents and without pleading that the

documents are part of the record filed the present application

vaguely. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed

the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. vide order dated

12.11.2019. Therefore, this Court does not find any irregularity or

illegality in the order passed by the Court below. The petitioners

herein failed to establish any circumstance or ground to interfere

with the order under challenge by this Court in exercise of its

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the Criminal

Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand

dismissed.

__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 19.01.2021 pgs