This appeal seeks to quash the lower court's dismissal of an accused's application under Cr.P.C. s.311 to admit documentary evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality in the lower court's order and noting the petitioner's inconsistent and unexplained pleas regarding the purpose of the documents.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4441 of 2010
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the accused in C.C.No.25 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, to quash the order, dated 22.03.2010, passed in Crl.M.P.No.687 of 2010.
The petitioner is the accused and whereas the second respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.25 of 2007. The complainant filed a complaint before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, against the petitioner herein alleging inter alia that the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.3,60,000/- on 10.05.2006 towards discharge of the legally enforceable liability. On presentation of the said cheque, it came to be dishonoured. Thereafter, he issued statutory notice and as there was no response from the petitioner, a complaint came to be presented before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala. Learned Additional Junior Civil Judge took the complaint on file as C.C.No.25 of 2007. The complainant adduced evidence on his behalf and thereafter, the petitioner-accused commenced evidence and examined himself as D.W-1. He filed Crl.M.P.No.687 of 2010 under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code to receive the following documents: -
(1) Exs.A-8 and A-1,
(3) Depositions of P.Ws.1 and 2.
The complainant resisted the application by filing counter.
Learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the petition by order, dated 22.03.2010. Hence this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the said order.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-complainant.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioneraccused submits that the certified copies of the documents sought to be received are no other than the documents which have been exhibited by respondent No.2-complainant in the civil suit, and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to respondent No.2complainant if the same are received.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2complainant supported the order impugned in the Criminal Petition.
I have gone through the petition filed by the petitioner before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala. The petition reads as hereunder:
“It is humbly submitted that the accused is the petitioner in this petition. The complainant filed the following documents in O.S.No.116 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Chirala. The said documents were marked by him on his behalf. I obtained certified copies of the said documents and filing them in this case. The said documents disprove the case of the respondent/complainant. And list of documents are noted in this petition and also purchased bill of Sri Bharath Handlomms (9) nine in number.
Hence, the petitioner/accused prays the Hon’ble Court to receive the said documents for marking purpose on behalf of the petitioner/accused.”
A reading of the above petition does not indicate as to for what purpose the said documents are sought to be received. There seems to be no consistency in the pleas advanced by the petitioner. On one hand, the petitioner pleaded that his signatures appearing on the cheque is a rank forgery and on the other, he pleaded that his signatures have been obtained by threat. Being not content with the said two pleas, he has also taken the plea that the amount under the cheque has been discharged. The petitioner has not indicated as to in what way the documents sought to be received in evidence support his plea of defence. The trial Court has considered the material brought on record in a right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the petition.
I do not see any illegality in the order impugned in the Criminal Petition warranting interference of this Court
in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
__________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J
27th February 2012 DR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order of the lower court dismissing the application to receive documents under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the documents sought to be received will support any of his inconsistent pleas of defence.
Whether the impugned order passes any patent illegality warranting interference by this Court.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Accused
State
Complainant
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
