Petitioner challenged J.M.F.C. order allowing sealed envelope opening in cheque dishonour proceedings. Court clarified envelope opening and notice proof procedures before disposing of the petition.
Petition disposed with clarification on opening sealed envelope Exh.45 and proving notice per law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL W.P. NO.250 OF 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders.
of Coram, appearance, Court’s
orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Purwant i/by Mr. A.S.Borkar for
the petitioner.
Ms.M.M. Mhatre, APP. for the State.
CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 8, 2006.
P.C.
1. This petition challenges an order
passed by the J.M.F.C. Kolhapur on
30.12.2005 allowing Exh.47 in Regular
Case No. 815/2003. Exh.47 was an
application made in 138 proceeding for
opening sealed postal envelope which
had been exhibited to know the contents
of the notice and including it in the
evidence. The Advocate for the
petitioner states that the court has
erred in allowing the said prayer. He
further states that the notice in
question will have to be proved in
accorodance with law. He states that
he would be satisfied if it is
clarified that the sealed envelope
Exh.45 be opened and the notice will be
exhibited if proved in accordance with
:2:
law. In the circumstances, with the
clarification that sealed envelope
Exh.45 be opened and the notice be
exhibited if proved in accorodance with
law, petition is dipsosed off.
Needless to say that the evidence of
person who has given notice will be
allowed for the purpose of proving the
notice if necessary.
(R. S. MOHITE, J.)
Petitioner
State
R. S. MOHITE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court