THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1564 OF 2019

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner/complainant to quash the Order in Crl.M.P.No.380 of 2018 in C.C.No.10 of 2017 on the file of the XXIV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, refusing to mark documents in Crl.R.P.No.209 of 2018 was filed against the said order on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. However Revision was dismissed on the ground that the Order passed by Magistrate was an interlocutory order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record.

3. Petition was filed under Section 254(2) of Cr.P.C for receiving documents was dismissed. The trial Court refused to get documents on record on ground that there is no mention in the complaint regarding the said documents.

4. The complainant approached the Sessions Judge by filing the Revision Petition. Learned Sessions Judge found that since the order is interlocutory in nature, Revision is not maintainable under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C and accordingly, dismissed the Revision.

5. Aggrieved by the Orders of the Court below the present Criminal Petition is filed.

6. The Honourable Apex Court in Bipin Shanthi Lal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and others1, 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 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

1 AIR 2001 SC 1158

proceeding further. For all the other objections, the procedure suggested above can be followed”. It is also held in Sudhakerreddy v. M Pullaiah2 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.”

7. Mere marking of document will not dispense with its proof, unless the document is proved in accordance with law.

8. The words used in Section 254 of Cr.P.C that “If the Magistrate does not convict the accused under section 252 or section 253, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take ‘all such evidence’ as may be produced in support of the

2015 (3) ALT 575 G prosecution, and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence”.

9. ‘All such evidence’ would include any documents produced during examination of witnesses thought not mentioned in the complaint but relevant to the case.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed. In the event of any application being filed by the complainant to get