CRWP-518-18.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 518 OF 2018

Shyamsunder Hariram Varma

..PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra and Others

..RESPONDENTS

....

Mr. R.N. Chavan, Advocate h/f Mr. V.A. Bagdiya, Advocate for petitioner

Mrs. G.L. Deshpande, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 – State

Mr. V.V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for respondent no.2

....

CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.

DATED : 17^th JUNE, 2021

PER COURT :

1.

Heard.

2.

The challenge in this writ petition is to order dated 31^st January,

2018 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hingoli below

Exhibit 250 in Regular Criminal Case No. 407 of 2002. By the impugned

order, the prayer for exhibiting the documents produced alongwith said

application, has been turned down.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is a case

instituted otherwise than on police report. The documents, sought to be

exhibited, were received by the petitioner/complainant under Right to

1 / 3

CRWP-518-18.odt

Information Act (R.T.I.). All the documents are public documents and very

much relevant for just decision of the case. He, therefore, urged for setting

aside the impugned order and grant of application (Exh.250).

4.

Learned counsel for the respondents would, on the other hand,

supported the impugned order.

5.

It is a criminal case instituted otherwise than on police report. It

dates back to the year 2002. It is at the stage of recording of evidence before

charge. The evidence of the petitioner/complainant has already been

recorded. He moved application (Exh.250) and strait-away produced about

69 documents, said to have been obtained under R.T.I. Act. According to

him, almost all the documents are in the nature of correspondence between

high ranking public officials.. The documents are very much relevant. One of

the respondents/accused was the chief officer of the concerned municipal

council. It is a case of unauthorised construction. The process appears to

have been issued for the offences punishable under Sections 166 and 167

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Trial Court rejected the

application for many reasons.

6.

The petitioner/complainant first of all directly produced 69

documents alongwith Exhibit 251. He did not seek permission of the Court

2 / 3

CRWP-518-18.odt

for production of documentary evidence. To top it, he urged the Court to

mark all those documents exhibit on the ground of those being public

documents. Unless and until the documents are referred to in evidence and

duly proved, no documents get admitted in evidence. Mere exhibition of the

documents does not amount to proof of contents thereof. It is a criminal

case. The trial Court was justified in rejecting the prayer of the

petitioner/complainant to accept the documents without being duly proved. I

do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

7.

If the petitioner/complainant moves an application seeking

production of those documents and permission to adduce evidence in proof

thereof, the learned Magistrate would decide the same on it’s own merits.

Criminal writ petition thus, stand disposed of.

( R.G. AVACHAT, J. )

SSD

3 / 3