SITARAM RANGAPPA KAUSHIK Vs. UKANDA BHIKA JADHAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed on behalf of the applicant for taking certified copy of order dated 15-4-1968 which was passed in Tenancy Proceedings No. 97/59 (13)/63-64 and also for production of these proceedings. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, by order dated 15-4-1968 it was held that the mother of the respondent No. 1 was not tenant of the property in respect of which the respondent No. 1 was tried for theft under sections 379 and 427 of I. P. C. In the said criminal case, he was convicted by the trial Court but was acquitted by the Appellate Court and against the said acquittal, revision has been admitted by this Court. He, therefore, contends that the order dated 15-4-1968 as also the Tenancy Proceedings be allowed to be produced under section 391 read with section 482 Cri. P. C. Learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that no appeal was filed against the order dated 15-4-1968. In support of his contention he relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in (Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. The State of West Bengal and another), reported in A. I. R. 1965 S. C. 1887.

(2.) THIS application is strongly opposed by the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the said evidence was available, the prosecution had opportunity to produce the same, but since it was not produced, the same should not be allowed to be produced on account of delay and laches in production of the same. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in (Rambhau and another v. State of Maharashtra), reported in 2001 (3) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)638 : 2001 S. A. R. (Cri.) 512. Learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 also sought permission to file certified copy of order dated 4th March, 2001 by which the grand-father of respondent No. 1 has been held to be tenant of the suit property in respect of which the offence under sections 379 and 427 of I. P. C. is alleged to have been committed.

(3.) THE whole controversy in this appeal as also the Criminal Revision Application No. 31 of 2000 filed by the present applicant challenging the order of acquittal of respondent No. 1 is as to in whose possession was the suit property when the offence is alleged to have been committed and whether the grand-father of the respondent No. 1 is a tenant of the said property. The Apex Court in Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. The State of West Bengal and another (cited supra) has laid down :-