L HEMLATHA Vs. T SURYACHANDRA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Seshadn Naidu, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner/de facto complainant and Sri Somakonda Reddy, Counsel representing the 1st respondent/ accused and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the 2nd respondent/State

(2.) Sri Seshadn Nadiu, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that the prayer which had bee prayed for is for production of account books of M/s R R Constructions and this aspect was not taken note of by the learned Magistrate while dismissing the application The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the facts of the case and would maintain that the defacto complainant in fact was informed that the alleged accounts are of two kinds- one account meant for writing actual expenditure and the other account meant for the sake of account The learned Counsel also had taken this Court reasons which had been light of the view expressed in reasons which had been recorded by the learned Magistrate and would maintain that in the light of the view expressed in State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu Oghad the view expressed by the learned Magistrate may not be the correct view

(3.) Per contra, Sri Somakonda Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent/accused would maintain that virtually the accused is managing the affairs and what had been prayed for is production of account books from his custody It is needless to say that inasmuch as the accused is said to be in the custody of certain documents, the so called incriminating documents, for the purpose of establishing the case of the prosecution an application was moved directing the accused to produce such documents which would be violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in State of Gujarat v Shyamlal