STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GAURANG MATHURBHAI LEUVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 1/03/1999, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Gandhinagar, exhibiting the document overruling the objection raised by the prosecution, while recording the evidence of Manojkumar Chhanabhai Kapadia (Ex. 28) in Sessions Case No. 27 of 1998 on his file, the present revision application is filed. Necessary facts, in order to appreciate the rival contentions, may in brief be stated.

(2.) Pertaining to the charge of the offences under Secs. 498A and 306, Indian Penal Code framed, when evidence in Sessions Case No. 27 of 1998 was being recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge at Gandhinagar, the learned Advocate for the respondents who are the accused in that Sessions Case, asked certain questions in the cross-examination of the aforesaid witness and got the letters written by the victim Anjuben admitted and exhibited. At that time, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Shri Patel objected against admission of the documents giving exhibit submitting that he wanted to re-examine the witness putting the questions which could be asked in the cross-examination getting him declared hostile, and so long as his such re-examination was not over, and the Court was not satisfied about the reliability of the evidence on the point, the letters and cards in question could never be exhibited. Disagreeing with the objection raised, the learned Judge exhibited the letters and greetings cards as Exhibits 30 to 38. The cross-examination was then over. Immediately thereafter the learned Public Prosecutor sought time making it clear to the Court that he wanted to prefer the revision before the High Court. His request for time was then accepted. The evidence recorded till that stage was read over and explained to the witness, and the learned Judge then signed the deposition. This Revision application is, therefore, filed calling in question the legality and validity of the order overruling the objection raised. The crucial point raised for consideration is whether Revision Application can lie if the lower Court exhibits and admits a document in evidence or refuses to admit and exhibit.

(3.) Assailing the order of the learned Judge, Ms. Katha (Binoda) Gajjar, the learned A.P.P., contends that the letters and greeting cards were not proved in accordance with the provisions of Secs. 47 and 67 of the Evidence Act. Further, without affording the opportunity to the prosecution to cross-examine the witness, the documents when exhibited cannot in law be said to have been exhibited legally. In reply, the learned Advocate, Mr. J. B. Pardiwala submits that this revision application is not maintainable at all because the order in question is the interlocutory order and so in view to Sec. 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code the powers conferred cannot be exercised. He also supported the impugned order.