Allowed

Gurupadappa S/O Siddappa Mahajan v. Shivaji Sadashiv Ghorpade

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2013CRL.P/10280/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a petition under Section 482 CrPC questioning the marking of documents. The Court held that with the complainant's no-objection and no dispute on the document source, there was no legal bar or prejudice, allowing marking as a subjective matter for the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of maintaining that marking of documents was lawful without prejudice.

Gurupadappa S/O Siddappa Mahajan Vs Shivaji… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10280 OF 2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Gurupadappa, S/o. Siddappa Mahajan, Aged 56 years, Occupation: Government Servant, Resident of Mallamma Nagar, Mudhol, Taluk: Mudhol, District: Bagalkot.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri Vijay M. Malali, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Shivaji Sadashiv Ghorpade, Aged 43 years, Publisher Auditor & Distributor of ANAYAKKE SHIKSHE Newspaper, Jamakandi, Resident of Savalgi, Taluk: Jamakandi, District: Bagalkot.

¶13

Basavraj Agraneppa Bahirshetti, Aged 59 years,

¶14

¶15

Printer of ANAYAKKE SHIKSHE Newspaper, Jamakandi, Resident of Mudhol road, Jamakandi, Taluk: Jamakandi, District: Bagalkot.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(By Shri Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, Advocate for Respondent No.1, Respondent No.2 served)

¶18

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the impugned order dated 31.1.2013 in Crl.R.P.No.87/2012 passed by the Fast Track Court, Jamakhandi and the order dated 15.9.2012 in C.C.No.737/2003 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Jamakhandi.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, this day, the Court made the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The present petition is filed questioning the mode in which certain documents have been marked during the course of the trial.

¶22

It transpires that the respondents are facing accusations

¶23

for offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.', for

¶24

¶25

brevity). It transpires that at the trial, the accused had sought to summon certain documents from the office of the Tahsildar where the complainant was employed as a Shiresthedar and such documents having been produced before the court, the documents were said to be marked through the evidence of Accused No.1, who examined himself as DW-1. The court having allowed the application summoning the documents on a no-objection having been furnished by the complainant, and the documents having been marked thereby on the footing that since the complainant had no objection of the documents having been summoned, he could not have raised any objection for the document being marked. However, it is the case of the complainant that the documents which were produced from the custody of the office of the Tahsildar could only be marked through the evidence of the Tahsildar himself or such other person deputed to produce those documents in court. The said documents though obtained from the office of the Tahsildar, could not be marked through the medium of the accused. This

¶26

¶27

is the objection raised and this is the ground raised in the present petition. However, it is to be observed that there is no dispute as to the source from which those documents have been produced. The contents of those documents do not stand established or would not ipso facto support the case of the accused merely because they have been produced and marked.

¶28

Whether the contents of those documents would

¶29

support the case of the accused, is a matter purely within the discretion of the court below and it would yet be for the accused to canvass his contentions on the basis of the said documents. Therefore, there is no legal bar on those documents having been marked, given the source from which those documents were secured and there is no prejudice caused to the present petitioner, since the documents were summoned with no objection having been given by the petitioner himself. Therefore, in the absence of any legal bar for the marking of those documents, the same being marked in evidence, by itself, will not establish the case of the accused.

¶30

¶31

In that view of the matter, the petition does not merit

¶32

consideration and is disposed of.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Gurupadappa S/O Siddappa Mahajan v. Shivaji Sadashiv Ghorpade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurupadappa S/O Siddappa Mahajan v. Shivaji Sadashiv Ghorpade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Ibrahim Abdullah Havaldar Vs Shri S M Kamble

Maunuddin S/O Abdulsatarsab Addul Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh S/O. Shivabasappa Menashinkai Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Kalmeshwar Co. Op Credit Society Vs Shri Jayant Appasaheb Chorage

Smt Asha Vs S G Mallikarjuna

Sri M Chinnakoti Reddy Vs Smt B Bhagyalakshmi