Telangana High Court
M.Someshwar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 16 November, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11281 & 11282 OF 2023
COMMON ORDER:
CRL.P.NO.11281 of 2023:
The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order dated
13.09.2023
passed in Crl.M.P.No.512 of 2023 in
C.C.No.546 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Thungathurthy whereby the photocopies of
documents were sought to be marked by the accused.
CRL.P.NO.11282 of 2023:
The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order dated
13.09.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.513 of 2023 in
C.C.No.546 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Thungathurthy whereby DW1 was recalled for
adducing evidence.
02. The said documents were permitted subject to
proof and relevancy.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that even getting the document on record, pre-requisites of
Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act have to be fulfilled.
Though it is the case of the accused that the documents
are with complainant, it is for him to issue notice and
thereafter, photocopies of documents can be produced. He
relied upon a decision in J.Yashoda v. K.Shobha Rani 1.
04. The offence alleged against the accused is under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
05. The documents sought to be brought on record
by accused are photocopies. Learned Magistrate permitted
to get the documents on record subject to proof and
relevance.
06. In Honourable Apex Court in Bipin Shanthi
Lal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and others 2, wherein it
was held that:
"Whenever an objection is raised during the
evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility
of any material or item of oral evidence the trial
Court can make a note of such objection and
make the objected document tentatively as an
exhibit in the case (Or record the objected part of
2007 (5) S.C.C. Page No.730
AIR 2001 SC 1158
the oral evidence subject to such objections to be
decided at the last stage in the final Judgment. If
the Court finds the final stage that the objection
so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate
can keep such evidence excluded from
consideration. There is no illegality in adopting
such a course. The Court however made it clear
that if, the objection relates to deficiency of stamp
duty of a document the Court has to decide the
objection before proceeding further. For all the
other objections, the procedure suggested above
can be followed". It is also held in Sudhakerreddy
v. M Pullaiah 3 that "ii) The documents, which are
marked, do not dispense with their proof. iii)
There is a difference between marking of a
document and admitting the same in evidence. iv)
As held by the Supreme Court in
R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder, the objection that
the document which is sought to be proved is
itself inadmissible in evidence can be raised even
at a later stage or even in appeal or revision.
When the objection relates to mode of proof
alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient,
the objection should be taken before the evidence
is tendered and cannot be allowed to be raised at
any stage subsequent to the marking of the
document as an exhibit. This later objection is an
objection relating to the irregularity or
insufficiency. v) In order to avoid delay in the trial
of the suit, the Court can tentatively mark a
document and examine its admissibility and the
objection raised to it along with the
pronouncement of Judgment."
07. Mere marking of document will not dispense
with its proof, unless the document is proved in
2015 (3) ALT 575 G
accordance with law. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity
in the Order passed by the learned Magistrate.
08. In view of the above discussion permitting to get
the photocopies on record, no orders needs to be passed in
CRL.P.No.11282 of 2023.
09. Accordingly, both Criminal Petitions are
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if
any, shall stand closed.
______________________
K. SURENDER, J
Date: 16-NOV-2023
KHRM
