HAMID BINESA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed questioning the order of the learned HI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad passed in Crl. MP. No.670 of 1999 in SC No.96 of 1996 permitting to mark a photostat copy of an agreement of sale which is said to be relevant for the purpose of the case.

(2.) It appears XXI Metropolitan Magistrate made a complaint under Section 340 of Cr.PC against the petitioners herein in respect of offence under Section 195 of IPC. It is alleged in that case that they have given false evidence in respect of an agreement of sale. While sending a copy of complaint, the learned Magistrate enclosed a photostat copy of the said agreement of sale with a further observation that the original will be sent as and when called for.

(3.) When the Sessions case came up for trial, on behalf of the prosecution a petition was filed seeking permission to lead secondary evidence and get the photostat copy of the agreement of sale in question admitted in evidence by marking it as an exhibit. On behalf of the petitioners herein, objection was raised that the photostat copy in question does not contain any authentication or any endorsement or certificate by any officer that it was a true copy and on that ground admitting that document and marking it as an exhibit was objected to.