Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3210
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
N. HARINATH, J
V SATHEESH – Appellant
Versus
SRIRAM CHANDRASEKHAR @ CHINTU – Respondent
CRLP 1580/2025
P SAI SURYA TEJA, D PURNACHANDRA REDDY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
A retired government servant can testify about official acts and identify signatures, and does not need to be the author of a document to mark it.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Rules of Practice - Rule 240(4) - Evidence - Competency of witness - The petitioner challenged the order denying the marking of sanctioned proceedings through a retired government servant, asserting his competency to identify the signature of the Collector. The court found that a witness does not need to be the author of a document to mark it. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
(B) Fair opportunity - The court emphasized the importance of providing both sides a fair opportunity to present their case, allowing the prosecution to examine the witness. (Paras 5, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a listed witness, faced objections from the defense regarding the marking of documents through a retired clerk, leading to a challenge of the trial court's order.
Findings of Court:
The trial judge's order was set aside, allowing the prosecution to examine the witness to identify the signature on the sanctioned proceedings.
Issues: The main issues included the competency of the witness to mark the sanctioned proceedings and the necessity of allowing the prosecution to present its evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a retired government servant can testify about official acts and identify signatures, reinforcing that authorship of a document is not a prerequisite for marking it.
Result: Criminal petition allowed.
ORDER :
The petitioner is challenging the docket order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge – Cum – Special Court for Trial of Offences against women, Chittoor.
2. The petitioner is listed witness No.1 (LW.1) and the sanction proceedings were sought to be marked through V.Siva Subramanyam/PW-56. The PW-56 who was the Clerk in the office of District Collector and he was the person and during his service he had processed the application and that he would also identify the signature of the sanctioning authority, the document was sought to be marked.
3. The defence objected for marking the said document through PW-56 as PW-56 is neither the author of the document nor is he the competent person to get the document marked on behalf of the Collector.
4. The learned Judge has considered the objection raised by the defence counsel and sustained the objection raised by the defence counsel.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is the second round of litigation. The prosecution has filed Crl.MP.No.512 of 2024 in SC.No.110 of 2016 seeking to summon V.Siva Subramanyam, who had retired from service on 31.08.2017 as Deputy Tahsildar. The prosecution proposed to examine him and confront the Collector’s proceedings in D.Dis.C4/616/2016, dated 17.02.2016. The defence objected for marking the said document and also for summoning V.Siva Subramanyam. The learned Sessions Judge had dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the prosecution filed the Criminal Petition No.7448 of 2024, which was allowed by this Court on 07.12.2024. The operative portion reads as follows ;
In that view, to give a fair opportunity to both sides to prove their respective contentions before the court of law, in the interest of justice, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The prosecution is permitted to examined Sri V.Siva Subramanyam, as a witness on behalf of the prosecution to speak about the sanction proceedings and for identification of the signature of the District Collector on the sanction proceedings. To meet the ends of justice, the learned Trial Judge is directed to take up the matter for examining the rest of witnesses in a day to day basis since the sessions case is of the year 2016 without giving any adjournment in a casual way on mere asking.
6. The witness was summoned as desired by the prosecution. However, the sanctioned proceedings which were proposed to be marked by the prosecution was objected by the defence on the ground that V.Siva Subramanyam (PW-56) was not authorized to give evidence on behalf of the Collector or on behalf of the Government. Thus, the evidence of PW-56 was not permitted to mark the sanctioned the proceedings.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that it is not essential for the prosecution to mark the exhibit through the PW-56 and the same could also be marked through the investigating officer whose examination was scheduled. It is also submitted that the PW-56 is an incompetent witness for marking the sanctioned proceedings issued by the Collector.
8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the witness is competent to identify the signature of the Collector and thus is a competent witness to mark the said proceedings.
9. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
10. Rule 240 (4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice would entitle a Retired Government Servant to give evidence in respect of his official acts or matters within his knowledge before retirement shall be paid Travelling and Subsistence Allowance according to the rates he would have been eligible under the Andhra Pradesh Travelling Allowance Rules, had he not retired from service.
11. The order of the learned trial judge upholding the objections raised by the defence counsel cannot sustain and deserved to be set aside. PW-56 who retired as
