Subrata Brahma vs.state

Subrata Brahma vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 28, 2018

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1217390

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1217390
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Aug 28, 2018
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subrata Brahma

Respondent

State

Excerpt

.....given exhibit marks. however, he refers to the statement of pw13 - sh. m.c. joshi, the government examiner of questioned documents, cfsl, to show that reference is made to the promissory notes by referring to exhibit numbers. he submits that the fact that these documents are specifically referred to in the testimony of pw13, recorded on 05.07.2011, shows that the original documents had already come on record on the said date and thus submits that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents were not furnished to him is not borne out from the record as the said witness was cross- examined by the counsel for the petitioner. learned counsel, however, submits that since these documents have come on record subsequent to recording of the statement of pw1, he would like an opportunity to formally tender the said documents in evidence.4. in view of the fact that the documents are already on record and have been referred to in the testimony of pw13, i am not inclined to grant any of the prayers made by the petitioner. however, with the consent of the crl.m.c. 3389/2018 page 2 of 3 parties, the complainant is permitted one opportunity to step into the witness box to formally tender the original promissory notes in evidence. the petitioner accused would have a right to cross-examine the complainant limited to the documents being tendered.5. in view of the above, the directions imposing costs of rs.10,000/-, by order dated 06.07.2018, is set aside. the observation that the petitioner has adopted dilatory tactics and is delaying and derailing the trial would not be taken into account by the trial court at the time of the consideration of the merit of the matter.6. in view of the above, the parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 01.09.2018 for the purposes of recording additional testimony of pw-1and for cross-examination of pw-1. it is clarified that no adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner on the said date for the.....

Full Judgment

Judgment delivered on:

28. 08.2018 CRL.M.C. 3389/2018 $~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + SUBRATA BRAHMA STATE versus ........ Petitioner

..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner

s : For the... RESPONDENTS

: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate. Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP for the State. SI Ramesh Chander, Crime Branch. Mr. Anil Rakhra, Advocate for the complainant. CORAM:-

"HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT2808.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

(ORAL) CRL.M.C. Crl.M.A.12276/2018 (for placing the petition as it is) 3389/2018 Crl.M.A.12274/2018 & (stay), 1. The petitioner impugns order dated 06.07.2018, whereby, the application of the petitioner under Section 207 Cr.P.C. for supply of copies of demand promissory notes has been rejected with costs of Rs.10,000/- and with an observation that the petitioner/accused has adopted dilatory tactics to delay the proceedings.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the respondent complainant is alleged to have filed original promissory notes, however, they were not on record at the time when the statement of the complainant CRL.M.C. 3389/2018 Page 1 of 3 was recorded. He submits that the copies of the documents were not provided at an appropriate stage, however, he has now obtained certified copies from the Court record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the inspection of the record has revealed that the original promissory notes are now available on record. He submits that in the testimony of PW1, they have not been given exhibit marks as at the time when the statement was recorded only photocopies were on record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant after inspection of the record concedes that in the testimony of PW1 - the complainant, all the Promissory notes have not been given exhibit marks. However, he refers to the statement of PW13 - Sh. M.C. Joshi, the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, CFSL, to show that reference is made to the promissory notes by referring to exhibit numbers. He submits that the fact that these documents are specifically referred to in the testimony of PW13, recorded on 05.07.2011, shows that the original documents had already come on record on the said date and thus submits that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents were not furnished to him is not borne out from the record as the said witness was cross- examined by the counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel, however, submits that since these documents have come on record subsequent to recording of the statement of PW1, he would like an opportunity to formally tender the said documents in evidence.

4. In view of the fact that the documents are already on record and have been referred to in the testimony of PW13, I am not inclined to grant any of the prayers made by the petitioner. However, with the consent of the CRL.M.C. 3389/2018 Page 2 of 3 parties, the complainant is permitted one opportunity to step into the witness box to formally tender the original promissory notes in evidence. The petitioner accused would have a right to cross-examine the complainant limited to the documents being tendered.

5. In view of the above, the directions imposing costs of Rs.10,000/-, by order dated 06.07.2018, is set aside. The observation that the petitioner has adopted dilatory tactics and is delaying and derailing the trial would not be taken into account by the Trial Court at the time of the consideration of the merit of the matter.

6. In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 01.09.2018 for the purposes of recording additional testimony of PW-1and for cross-examination of PW-1. It is clarified that no adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner on the said date for the purposes of cross-examination.

7. 8. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. The original record be sent back forthwith to the Trial Court through a special messenger.

9. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. AUGUST28 2018 st SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J CRL.M.C. 3389/2018 Page 3 of 3

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties Subrata Brahma vs State Same Subject Criminal