Dismissed

Sajjan Kumar Agarwal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC12 Oct 2015CRLMP/2973/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition challenged an order allowing secondary evidence. The court held no interference was needed as the lower court had valid reasons.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the order allowing secondary evidence was dismissed.

Sajjan Kumar Agarwal and Anr. Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench Jaipur

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2973/2015

¶5

Sajjan Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Raj.

¶6

DATE OF ORDER ::: 12^th October, 2015

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶8

Mr. O.P. Mishra, for petitioner. Mr. N.S. Dhakad, PP.

¶9

The petitioners while invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailed the impugned order dated 07.05.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur in Criminal Case No.22/2009 (State Vs. Mahendra Agarwal & Anr.) whereby learned Magistrate partly allowed the application filed by Assistant Public Prosecutor u/s 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and allowed him to lead secondary evidence.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that original documents have been submitted by the complainant with the complaint, therefore, it denotes

¶11

¶12

that original documents are lying with complainant's department. Since, original documents are lying with complainant, therefore, no permission can be given for leading secondary evidence. He submits that in the reply to the application u/s 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, petitioners-accused clearly stated that no notices were affixed on the office of society. When no such notices were issued for them, no question of existence of the notice arises. Without considering these facts, learned Magistrate wrongly allowed the application u/s 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, therefore, the same may be quashed and set aside.

¶13

Heard.

¶14

On the one hand, learned counsel submits that original documents are lying with complainant department and on the other hand he submits that no notice was affixed on the office, therefore, no such notices are in existence. It is true that in complaint, it has been mentioned that original documents are submitted with the complaint but neither petitioners nor the court says that original documents were submitted with complainant. Therefore, merely mentioning in

¶15

¶16

complaint that original documents are submitted herewith is of no consequence.

¶17

From the perusal of impugned order, it reveals that the matter is about 20 years old and original documents were sent to headquater which are not treaceable.

¶18

In view of it, learned court below allowed the application of complainant for marking exhibit on the copies of documents as secondary evidence, which does not require interference. There is no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

¶19

However, it is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not affect the trial of the case.

¶20

[BANWARI LAL SHARMA], J.

¶21

Brijesh 18.

¶22

'' All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed''.

¶23

Brijesh Kumar Jr. PA

Sajjan Kumar Agarwal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajjan Kumar Agarwal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

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

Jitendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Ramesh Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Smt Shabnam Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Shailesh @ Amin Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Babloo Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Chaman Koli and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp