AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Jagannathan
These two petitions are the outcome of the judgment of the lower appellate court, which had remanded the case to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The trial court had convicted the accused in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 474 and 420 of the I.P.C. and an appeal preferred by the accused and the matter was remitted to the trial court. Thus, both the complainant and the accused are aggrieved by the order or remand in Crl.A. No. 676/2010 passed by the learned judge of the F.T.C. on 19.7.2011. The complainant has preferred Crl. R.P. No. 1012/2011 and the accused has preferred Crl.R.P. No. 1087/2011.
Shri M.S. Rajendra Prasad, learned senior counsel for has remanded the case to the trial court and the reasons given are not justifiable. On the other hand, on the basis of the evidence on record, the lower appellate court could have disposed of the case on merits.
Shri H.V. Manjunatha, learned counsel for the accused, on the other hand, submitted the Lower appellate court has given several reasons for remanding the case to the trial court and one such reason is that, the agreement of sale dated 25.11.1998 has not been produced and marked in evidence, but the trial court had gone on to record a finding that the said agreement of sale is a forged one. Moreover, the lower appellate court has also noted that several documents which were referred to for comparison were also not marked in evidence and finally, the trial court did not formulate the point for determination as required, but proceeded to discuss the evidence. On these grounds, the lower appellate court remanded the case to the trial court.
Having thus heard both sides and the lower appellate followed by the trial court and particularly in not marking several documents upon which reliance was placed and also in the absence of production of the agreement of sale dated 25.11.1998 and recording a finding on the said agreement of sale as a forged document, in my view, the reasons assigned by the lower appellate court at paragraph-17 of its judgment, therefore, have rightly led to the lower appellate court remanding the case to the trial court for fresh disposal. I see no error being committed by the learned judge of the lower appellate court in remanding the case for the aforesaid reasons.
As far as marking of document is concerned, it is pointed out by learned senior counsel Shri M.S. Rajendra Prasad for the complainant that Ex.P-1 is not a sale deed but a G.P.A. and it is wrongly marked as sale deed by the trial court.
In the light of the aforesaid reasons, I see no case made out for this court to interfere with the order of remand passed by the lower appellate court. The other defects pointed out can also be brought to the notice of the trial court since the mater is remanded for fresh disposal. In the result, the following order is passed:
The order of remand passed by the lower appellate court is confirmed.
The trial court shall consider. as to whether de nova trial has to be commenced or to confine the recording of evidence only in respect of the documents referred to by the lower appellate court in its order of remand.
The trial court also shall not in any way be influenced by the observations comments made by the lower appellate court in the order of remand.
The contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the parties are kept open.
In view of the matter being remanded, the trial court shall dispose of the case before the end of 31st October 2012 and both the parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 18.6.2012.
Both the petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
The learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks.