Judgment

1. The short point involved in this petition is as to whether Trial Court was justified in having permitted the accused-respondent to lead secondary evidence for proving the CD with Article J, which was in possession of the accused, by way of secondary evidence, as provided under Section 65 of the Evidence Act read with Section 102 of the Evidence Act. The order was passed on January 30, 2011 and has been assailed by the petitioner, who is the complainant and whose son was murdered, which is the subject matter of trial, wherein the respondent/accused is facing prosecution.

2. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, this petition is not maintainable as the petitioner who is the complainant is a third party and has no locus standi to file such a petition.

3. However, on behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that if an illegal order is passed, the petitioner being effected with such an order is entitled to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr.PC. This Court in view of Section 483, Cr.PC is also entitled to look into and correct the mistakes by exercising powers of continuous superintendence.

4. It would be appropriate to n