SANDEEP KOMALSINGH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P., heard finally.

(2.) The petitioner (accused no.7) in Regular Criminal Case no. 337 of 2009, which is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, has taken exception to the order dated 02nd April, 2018 passed below Exhibit 329, whereby permission has been granted to the prosecution to produce secondary evidence of the audit report.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application (Exh. 329) is very vague and general. There is no specific mention as to what efforts were made to search out the original document. Moreover, the said application is not supported by the affidavit of the Investigating Officer. He pointed out to certain judgments in support of his contention that unless the conditions mentioned under Section 65 of the Evidence Act are fulfilled, secondary evidence cannot be produced. He submits that even the copy of the audit report which was proposed to be produced, was not annexed with the application (Exh.329). He submits that the impugned order is a cryptic one. There is absolutely no mention whether the conditions mentioned in Section 65 of the Evidence Act have been fulfilled. According to him, the impugned order is totally unsustainable. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order may be set aside.