High Court dismissed revision challenging rejection of prayer to produce 40-year-old postal documents. Court held documents irrelevant to defence and move was belated, vacating interim order and directed steps for early trial conclusion.
Revision dismissed; interim order dated 17.10.2008 vacated.
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.
CRLREV No.1214 of 2008
This revision arises from an order dated 24.4.2008 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack in ICC No.79 of 1995.
By the said order, learned Magistrate has rejected the prayer of the petitioner (accused) to direct the Postal Authority of Nabarangpur Post Office to cause production of the money order register for the period from January, 1981 to May, 1981 as also the register showing receipt of registered letters covering the entire month of November, 1980.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (accused) and the opposite party (complainant). Perused the impugned order.
The above stated prayer of the petitioner (accused) which has been refused by the court below is said to have been made with a view to provide strength to the defence plea of the petitioner (accused). It is the defence that the petitioner (accused) having paid some amount to the opposite party (complainant), he was to pay back the same and for that he had demanded payment by sending letter through registered post and in pursuance to that demand, the opposite party (complainant) had paid a sum of Rs.1000/through money order with a promise to pay the balance which in turn is said to have been informed by him by sending ordinary letter. That letter is not proved by the petitioner (accused) and during his examination in the trial as D.W.1, he has stated that it had been damaged. Keeping in view the facts narrated in the complaint petition in support of the commission of the offences under section 420 IPC in cheating the opposite party (complainant) by not supplying
the articles for which payment is said to have been made by the opposite party (complainant) to the petitioner (accused), this Court is of the considered view that the documents sought to be called for have no relevance at all. Moreover, when the petitioner (accused) is facing the trial since 1995; the move to call for the documents for the first time in the year 2008 is highly belated when it is quite obvious that the exercise would be one in futility and it is also not snown that as mandated under the rule such documents are required to be preserved even beyond a period of quarter century. It is pertinent to mention here that the age of those documents by now is around forty years.
In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the revision which is accordingly dismissed.
Interim order dated 17.10.2008 stands vacated. The order be forthwith communicated to the court below for taking necessary steps as provided in law for early conclusion of the trial in accordance with law.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order on proper application.
D. Dash,J.
Basu
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should allow a belated revision seeking production of documents from 40 years ago which are likely lost or not preserved.
Whether the documents sought by the accused to evade trial charges have any legal relevance given the delay.
Whether the order directing production of old postal registers should be allowed in a case tried since 1995.
Petitioner (Accused)
Complainant
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
