ALPHINE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD Vs. B. MANOHAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.5383 of 2019 in C.C.No.116 of 2016 passed by the XI Special Magistrate at Erramanzil, Hyderabad, the petitioners herein filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the said order.

(2.) The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C.No.116 of 2016. The offence alleged against the petitioners herein is under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners herein has filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.No.5383 of 2019 in C.C.No.116 of 2016 seeking permission of the Court below to lead secondary evidence and exhibiting some other documents in defense evidence. In the said application, the petitioners herein have contended that the orders in Crl.M.P.No.2946 of 2019 dated 09.07.2019 filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Crl.M.P.No.4128 of 2019 dated 03.09.2019 filed under Section 315 Cr.P.C. do not bar/prohibit the petitioners-accused from leading secondary evidence and exhibiting some other documents in defense evidence. The respondent-complainant has filed objections to the said petition by contending that the main Calendar Case is posted for continuation of chief-examination of D.W.1. At that particular stage, the petitioners herein have filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The relief sought in the said petition is beyond the scope of the orders passed in Crl.R.P.No.32 of 2019 by the learned VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 04.04.2019. The petitioners are trying to protract the case by filing false and frivolous applications. With the said objections, the respondent-complainant sought to dismiss the said application.

(3.) By order dated 12.11.2019, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioners/accused did not specify as to which documents they intend to lead secondary evidence so also as to which of the other documents they intend to get exhibited on their defence. They have also not filed any documents along with the present petition nor whispered a word specifying the documents which they intend to file as secondary evidence. It is held by the learned Magistrate that the petitioners did not specify as to which some other documents they intended to be exhibited on their behalf in their defence in the present case. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application vide order dated 12.11.2019 by holding that the relief sought by the petitioners is vague, clumsy and lacks clarity and so also it is also not specific.