SHAHID MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Misc. Petition has been preferred under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner against the order dtd. 4/3/2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bhilwara in Criminal Revision No.101/2020 (88/2020) whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed against the order dtd. 29/8/2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.833/2015, whereby an application under Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act filed by the respondent No.2 was allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submitted that in criminal case respondent No.2 without filing original document has filed an application under Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act for taking the same on record as secondary evidence to prove execution of sale agreement between accused and respondent No.2, which was allowed by the learned trial Court without following the process as prescribed under Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act. He would further submitted that no agreement was ever executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 but a photostat copy of false and fabricated document, filed by respondent No.2 was allowed to be admitted and exhibited as evidence by the trial Court. He would further submitted that if any of the original document is not available or have lost or destroyed then, under the law party may be permitted to lead secondary evidence but before admitting any document, the conditions as prescribed under the Act have to be fulfilled but in the present case, learned trial Court has failed to consider the conditions as prescribed before admission of secondary evidence. He relied upon the judgment delivered in J. Yashoa Vs. K. shoba Rani Manu/SCX/7314/2007 equivalent citation 2007 (5) SCC 630.

(3.) Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for complainantrespondent. Learned counsel for complainant-respondent would submitted that the document has already been exhibited and admitted in evidence before by the trial Court thus, the petition has already rendered infructuous. He would further submitted that mere exhibition of document does not give any right to file the present petition. He would further submitted that learned trial Court has supplemented the order with valid and cogent reasons and there are no grounds for interference by Hon'ble Court.