ABDUL MUTLIB Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this Criminal Misc. Petition is to the order dated 12th May, 2009, whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI Cases, Jodhpur permitted the complainant non petitioner no.2 Ram Arora to file the photostat copies of certain documents as secondary evidence.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that one complaint for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act came to be filed by the non petitioner no.2-complainant Ram Arora against the accused petitioner Abdul Mutlib in the court of ACJM, CBI Cases, Jodhpur. During the trial, the complainant Ram Arora filed photostat copies of the bills in the court imploring that this photostat copy should be treated as secondary evidence under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act.

(3.) E Converso, the learned counsel for the non petitioner no.2 complainant contended that the impugned order rendered by the trial court is just and proper, which warrants no intervention for the simple reason that the complainant before dissolution of the partnership firm got a photostat copy done from the carbon copy of the bill, but since that bill book is not traceable, there is no ground to cast any doubt upon their genuineness. Hence, in view thereof, this criminal misc. petition deserves to be dismissed.