//
you're reading...
legal issues

admissibility of a document in criminal procedings=During the course of evidence, the complainant tendered the certified copy of agreement, dated 30.04.2004. The petitioners raised objection for marking the said document. The learned Magistrate, on considering the objections raised by the petitioners and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to over-rule the objections and permitted the complainant to mark the certified copy of the agreement, dated 30.04.2004, by order, dated 25.11.2011. =i have gone through the memo filed by the petitioners herein in C.C.No.77 of 2006, copy of which has been placed on placed on record at page No.13 of the material papers. It is stated in the memo that the petitioners herein admitted of their signatures in the 1st page of the agreement, dated 30.04.2004. Such is the memo., the observation made by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be without any basis. No valid ground has been made out to quash the order, dated 25.11.2011, passed in C.C.No.77 of 2006.

English: Aerial view of Visakhapatnam, India.

Image via Wikipedia

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

 

Criminal Petition No.854 of 2012

 

Date:24th January, 2012

 

 

Between:

Lucky Enterprises rep. by its Prop:Manderapu Venkata Ramayya (A1) & Anr.

                                                                              ….. Petitioners

AND

 

The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr.

…..Respondents

 

***

 


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

 

Criminal Petition No.854 of 2012

 

ORDER:

 

                                                                       

        This Criminal Petition has been taken out by A1 and A2 in C.C.No.77 of 2006 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, to quash the order, dated 25.11.2011, passed in the said C.C.

 

2.     The 2nd respondent herein is the complainant in C.C.No.77 of 2006 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.  The 2nd respondent filed the complaint against the petitioners herein alleging, inter alia, that the 1st petitioner, representing the 2nd petitioner, has issued a cheque for Rs.42,20,000/- towards arrears of transportation charges. On presentation, the said cheque came to be dishonoured for the reason of ‘insufficient funds’.  The 2nd respondent issued the statutory notice to the petitioners herein.  The petitioners received the notice on 15.12.2005 and sent a reply on 12.01.2006.  The petitioners entered appearance in C.C.No.77 of 2006 and denied the accusations. Thereupon, the complainant commenced its evidence.  During the course of evidence, the complainant tendered the certified copy of agreement, dated 30.04.2004.  The petitioners raised objection for marking the said document.  The learned Magistrate, on considering the objections raised by the petitioners and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to over-rule the objections and permitted the complainant to mark the certified copy of the agreement, dated 30.04.2004, by order, dated 25.11.2011.  Hence, this Criminal Petition by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the said order.

 

3.     Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material brought on record.

 

4.     Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have specifically denied their signature in the agreement, dated 30.04.2004 and therefore, the learned Magistrate is not justified in observing that the signatures of the petitioners are undisputed.

 

5.     I have gone through the memo filed by the petitioners herein in C.C.No.77 of 2006, copy of which has been placed on placed on record at page No.13 of the material papers. It is stated in the memo that the petitioners herein admitted of their signatures in the 1st page of the agreement, dated 30.04.2004.  Such is the memo., the observation made by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be without any basis.  No valid ground has been made out to quash the order, dated 25.11.2011, passed in C.C.No.77 of 2006.

 

6.     Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

 

______________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

Date:24th January, 2012.

cs

 

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criminal Petition No.854 of 2012

 

 

 

 

 

Date:24th January, 2012

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,873,445 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: