The Court emphasized the importance of authenticity of exhibits and the presumption of genuineness under Section 80 of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has been filed seeking directions to the respondents No.1 and 2 to enquire and investigate in the matter as to how certain documents which were not exhibited were placed in the record of the trial Court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in a complaint case pending against him before the competent Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. The petitioner has filed this petition stating that on 06.05.2015, the respondent No.3- complainant appeared before the Court below for his examination-in- chief and he exhibited seven documents which were marked as Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit-P-7. On 26.09.2015, upon completion of the cross- examination of the respondent No.3, his evidence was closed and the matter was proceeded further. At the time of his examination-in-chief i.e. on 06.05.2015, Shri Santosh Kumar Kol, was the Presiding Judge, however, on the date of conclusion of the cross-examination of the respondent No.3-complainant, the Presiding Officer was Dr. Umashankar.

The petitioner further states that when the matter was being prepared for the evidence, it was found by him that in the record of the Court there were nine exhibits from Exhibit-P-1 to Exhibit-P-9 whereas, the order sheet dated 06.05.2015 records only seven exhibits.

The petitioner further stated that he found in all exhibits, the seal and signature of the present Presiding Officer namely; Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, are appearing whereas, there was no occasion for the present Presiding Officer to put his seal and signature, when the exhibits were marked on 06.05.2015. It is for these reasons, the petitioner prays for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. The respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their reply controverting the allegations made by the petitioner. The respondents have also brought on record the conduct of the petitioner to show that he being an accused before the trial Court is trying to prolong the proceedings. The original complaint was filed before the trial Court in the 2008 and till 2014, the petitioner did not appear. He appeared before the trial Court only when the proceedings under Sections 83 and 84 of Cr.P.C. for declaring him as a proclaimed offender were initiated including the attachment of his property. The petitioner earlier filed application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act questioning the correctness of Exhibit P-8 before the trial Court with a prayer to get it examined by the hand writing expert and the said application was rejected by the trial Court on 17.08.2017 and the order was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 06.11.2017. This Court in M.Cr.C. No.23223 of 2017 decided on 10.10.2018, also dismissed the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner and noted that the said proceedings were taken up by the petitioner at the fag end of the trial, is nothing but to delay the decision of the case. It is the contention of the respondents that even as on 17.08.2017, the petitioner was aware of existence of Exhibit-P-8 and, therefore, he did not question the existence of the said document.

It is the further stand of the respondents that on 06.05.2015, list mentioning 10 documents was filed by the respondent No.3 before the trial Court which was acknowledged by the counsel for the petitioner.

The same document which were mentioned at Serial No.8 and 9 have been marked as Exhibits P-8 and P-9. Three documents produced by the petitioner himself were marked as exhibited Ex-D-1 to D-3 as recorded in the order sheet dated 06.05.2015. It has been stated that due to over sight and inadvertence neither in the documents exhibited by the respondent No.3 nor in the documents exhibited by the petitioner, the seal and signature of the than Presiding Officer were marked.

However, the documents were available on record. It has been submitted that when on 28.02.2019 (Annexure-R-