G.Sainath Shet, S/O Krishna Shet, Vs. Somanath Mesiha, S/O Laxman MesthA. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[subhash. b. adi,j.]this criminal petition is filed under section 482 of cr.p.c. praying to quash the marking of impugned document f.x.p7 and p8 in c.c.no.363/02 dated 18.12.09 pending on the file of addl. c.j. (jr. dn.) and jmfc, kundapur. this criminal petition coming on for admission this day, the court made the following:-order1.petitioner who is accused in c.c.no.363/02 pending on the file of jmfc, kudapur has called in question the order dated 18.12.02. petitioner had filed an application under section 91 of cr.p.c. for summoning d.w.1 to produce specific documents namely, the loan ledger of 1997 reflecting the loan obtained by the accused on 20.1.97 and all connected papers and loan ledger of 1997 reflecting the loan obtained by the accused during january, february 1997 and all connected documents. on summoning, d.w.i appeared before the court. however, he did not support the accused and was treated hostile. accused was permitted to cross-examine him on limited aspect evidence. the learned magistrate has permitted the complainant to mark those documents, as against which, this petition has been filed.3. it is not in dispute that application was filed under section 91 of cr.p.c. it is also not in dispute that the witness was summoned only for production of two documents. when the witness had not produced the relevant documents opportunity was given to the accused to cross examine him on the limited aspect and further opportunity was given to the complainant to cross examine the said witness however, complainant got marked exs.p7 and p8. there is no reason for the complainant to get marked his documents in the evidence of me witness who was summoned only to produce documents named in the application under section 91 of cr.p.c. filed by the accused.4.in the circumstances, petition is allowed and marketing the documents exs.p7 and p8 in c.c. no. 363/02 is set side. matter appears to be pending since 2002. both the parties are directed to co-operate for the early disposal and if any cost is imposed by the learned magistrate during the proceedings, ensure that the cost is recovered. the learned magistrate shall also dispose of the matter within one year from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

Judgment:
ORDER

1.Petitioner who is accused in C.C.No.363/02 pending on the file of JMFC, Kudapur has called in question the order dated 18.12.0

2. Petitioner had filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for summoning D.W.1 to produce specific documents namely, the loan ledger of 1997 reflecting the loan obtained by the accused on 20.1.97 and all connected papers and loan ledger of 1997 reflecting the loan obtained by the accused during January, February 1997 and all connected documents. On summoning, D.W.I appeared before the Court. However, he did not support the accused and was treated hostile. Accused was permitted to cross-examine him on limited aspect evidence. The learned Magistrate has permitted the complainant to mark those documents, as against which, this petition has been filed.

3. It is not in dispute that application was filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. It is also not in dispute that the witness was summoned only for production of two documents. When the witness had not produced the relevant documents opportunity was given to the accused to cross examine him on the limited aspect and further opportunity was given to the complainant to cross examine the said witness however, complainant got marked Exs.P7 and P8. There is no reason for the complainant to get marked his documents in the evidence of me witness who was summoned only to produce documents named in the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. filed by the accused.

4.In the circumstances, petition is allowed and marketing the documents Exs.P7 and P8 in C.C. No. 363/02 is set side. Matter appears to be pending since 2002. Both the parties are directed to co-operate for the early disposal and if any cost is imposed by the learned Magistrate during the proceedings, ensure that the cost is recovered. The learned Magistrate shall also dispose of the matter within one year from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.