AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Abhay M. Thipsay, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By consent, admitted and heard finally. There is a dispute on the issue, whether the xerox copy of the cheque, which has been marked as Article ''A'' should be marked as an Exhibit or not. According to the applicant, who is the original complainant, it should be, whereas, according to the respondent no. 2, who is the original accused, it should not be.
In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that all that he wants is that the cheque should be tentatively marked as an Exhibit, subject to the objection to such marking thereof, as has been raised by the respondent no. 2 i.e. the original accused. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that all the relevant questions such as ''whether, the xerox copy is a secondary evidence of the original cheque'' or ''whether, the same has been properly proved,'' may be kept open, to be decided by the trial Court at the conclusion of the trial.
This would be consistent with the Practice Directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, .
The application is partly allowed.
The learned Magistrate is directed to mark the xerox copy of the cheque (Exhibit ''A'') tentatively as an Exhibit, keeping the question of admissibility and/or proof thereof open, to be decided at the conclusion of the trial in accordance with the directions given by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bipin Panchal (supra).
The application is disposed of accordingly.