CHHAGANLAL Vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is facing trial for offence u/ss, 14, 17 & 28 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga. During the trial, the complainant-Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti filed an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for leading secondary evidence. The said application has been granted by the impugned order dated 23.4.2003. It is alleged that the goods were sent by the accused-petitioner from Railway Station, Pilibanga in the year 1992. The record was summoned from the Railways to establish the said fact. It being an old record, the same could not be produced. The complainant sought permission to produce photo copy of the documents as second evidence. For the good reasons, the application has been granted.

(2.) It is argued by the learned counsel that the order of learned Magistrate is ex-facie illegal, as in view of the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, the complainant could not be permitted to lead secondary evidence by producing photo copy of the receipts.

(3.) I am of the view that no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is well settled that unless a grave illegality has been committed, it is not for the High Court to interfere with the pending proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court which is seized with the matter should be allowed to go with it, There is always an appellate Court to correct the errors. Every illegality, irregularity or infraction of the procedural provision cannot constitute a ground for interference by this Court exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. unless such irregularity and illegality has caused irreparable prejudice to the party and requires to be corrected at that stage itself. Reference be made to State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, reported in (1996) 7 SCC 705.