R. LALITHSHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner/Accused in C.C. No.4292 of 2013 filed this Criminal Revision Petition challenging the Order passed in Crl.M.P. No.5676 of 2023 filed by the prosecution to receive the Letter, dtd. 25/2/2013 of the Second Accused-Ramakanth to the Inspector of Police, New Washermenpet Police Station and Letter, dtd. 25/2/2013 of the Tamil Nadu Steel Scrap Processor's Association as Additional Documents.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that they are falsely implicated on a Complaint of one M. Pandi, who is running an indigenous Chit and a Money Lender. The Petitioners were Subscribers to the Chit and for their financial need, they said to have approached him, who collected amount from various persons and gave a Loan of Rs.1.85 Crores on the promise that the De facto Complainant would be made as Partner in Vanishita Ispat Udyo G(P) Ldt. and further, they had placed in custody to the De facto Complainant 550 MT of Steel Angles and Iron Scrap materials. Later, the De facto Complainant came to know that the materials transferred to the Godown of one Ganesan without De facto Complainant's knowledge, further the De facto Complainant not made as a Partner in the Petitioner's business as promised. Hence, he lodged a Complaint. The Respondent Police after investigation filed the Charge-sheet listing Witnesses LW1 to LW22 and documents. During trial, PW1 to PW15 examined. PW14 is the Investigating Officer, who registered FIR, conducted major portion of investigation. PW15, the succeeding Investigating Officer completed investigation and filed Charge-sheet in this case. During cross-examination, PW14 stated that the Petitioner/A2 had given a handwritten Letter in Tamil admitting his guilt and a Letter from the Tamil Nadu Steel Scrap Processor's Association, thereafter, the prosecution filed a Petition under Sec. 242(2), Cr.P.C. to receive both Letters as Additional Documents. The Trial Court allowed the same. The further contention of the learned Counsel is that admittedly the first Letter, dtd. 25/2/2013 is a admission Letter to the Inspector of Police, New Washermenpet Police Station after registration of a case in Crime No.198 of 2013 on 23/2/2013 which is inadmissible in evidence as per Sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and with regard to the second Letter, it is a Letter with interpretation. Further, LW19 the Secretary of the Association, no statement recorded and not examined as Witness, hence the Letter of LW19 cannot be read in as evidence. He further submitted that Petition filed under Sec. 242(2), Cr.P.C. is not proper. The Trial Court without considering the legality of the Letter allowed the Petition. Hence, the present Petition is filed.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the Petitioner cheated the De facto Complainant to the tune of Rs.1.85 Crores. The De facto Complainant produced documents and Witnesses to prove that he had given Loan of Rs.1.85 Crores to the Petitioner and other Accused to tide over the financial difficulties faced by them. The Petitioner and his family members were running a Steel rolling mill, got into trouble to the tune of Rs.26.00 Crores and they were indebted to several persons. The Bank Officials examined as witness, who confirms the Petitioner's due to the Bank to the tune of Rs.13.00 Crores and more. The Petitioner to cheat everyone executes documents and later deny the same. In this case, a Letter was given on 25/2/2013 voluntarily, likewise Tamil Nadu Steel Scrap Processor's Association Secretary, gave a Letter and marking of the Letters in evidence cannot be objected. He further submitted that marking of these documents necessitated since the specific question put by the Accused during cross-examination of PW14.