VIJAY RAO Vs. LAXMAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the complaint made against the order of the First Class Magistrate, Koppal, under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is that it suffers, among others, from the following infirmities:

(2.) Mr. Muralidhara Rao, appearing for the respondents (members of the first party), submits that the order made by the Magistrate is an elaborate order in which he has considered the documentary evidence produced by both the parties, and that though there is some infirmity in the order, if it does not lead to a failure of justice, then this Court should not interfere with it in revision.

(3.) No doubt, the learned Magistrate has considered the documentary evidence led by the parties to the dispute and has discarded the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the second party and stated that what remained to be considered was the oral evidence contained in the several affidavits filled on its behalf. He believed the documentary evidence produced by the first party. But the error which he committed was that having stated that there were several affidavits remained to be considered, and having believed the documentary evidence of the First party, he observed that that having disbelieved the documentary evidence produced by the second party, he was not inclined to accept the oral evidence produced on its behalf by filing affidavits. In my view, this is thoroughly wrong. Though a Court may not believe the documentary evidence, that does not mean that the affidavits produced on behalf of a party whose documentary evidence has been disbelieved, do not require any consideration. This summary way of rejecting the evidence produced in the form of affidavits on behalf of the second party is a serious mistake which affects the merit of the order.