V.BHEEMAYYA Vs. Y.RAMI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is accused in C.C.No.227 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Mahabubnagar. The de facto complainant, who is the 1st respondent herein, filed Crl.M.P.No.146 of 2008 before the trial court under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Act, for short) to grant permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of the photostat copy of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU, for short) dated 25-4-2006 and an Agreement of Sale dated 12-5-2006. The petition was allowed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is laid by the accused. He has arrayed 3rd parties to the case as respondents 2 and 3 apart from arraying the State as respondent No.4.

(2.) The 2nd respondent is an Advocate of Hyderabad. One Aktar Ali, resident of King Koti, Hyderabad, who is a client of the 2nd respondent, entered into an Agreement of Sale of Ac.20-00 guntas out of Ac.20-18 gts of land in Survey No.1009 situate at Kukatpally with the owner of the property, by name Smt. Azeemunnisa Begum. A dispute arose between Aktar Ali and Azeemunnisa Begum. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has been engaged by Aktar Ali as his counsel. It is his further case that on the instructions of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent paid Rs.6,00,000/- to Aktar Ali and obtained 'No Objection'. It is said to be prior to 25-4-2006 on which date, the respondents 1 and 2 allegedly entered into MoU with the petitioner. The 3rd respondent allegedly paid Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- on 04-5-2006 and 09-5-2006 to the 2nd respondent and obtained receipts from him in the name of the petitioner instead of in the name of the 3rd respondent.

(3.) While things stood thus, differences arose between the 3rd respondent on the one side and the respondents 1 and 2 on the other side. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents 1 and 2 consequently created MoU dated 25-4-2006 and that the 2nd respondent signed the MoU on behalf of the 3rd respondent as his counsel. This is the case of the petitioner.