AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda
The prosecution bad filed an application u/s 311 for production of certain documents reading as hereunder: MY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR.
It is submitted that this Hon''ble Court directed the prosecution to produce the original documents pertaining to this case.
It is submitted on the basis of this direction the prosecution requested the Vijay Bank to produce the original documents pertaining to this case. The Vijaya Bank informed that the original documents are not readily available, on the other hand on the basis of certified copy of the documents they can produce one set of certified copies of documents for the purpose of trial of this case and accordingly, The Vijaya Bank handed over one set of certificate copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution to prove the charge against accused.
Today, the prosecution produced the same and with the sufficient sets of same copies of the certified documents, in order to furnish to the accused.
PRAYER
It is appropriate that this Hon''ble Court may please to permit the prosecution to mark the certified documents produced by Vijaya Bank to CBI in this case for just decision of the case and in the interest of the case and thus render justice.
This application was opposed by accused. 2. The learned Judge accepted the application in terms of the following order:
That both sides on the application, in view of the affidavit of Sri B. Karunakar Shetty, Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank and the enabling rule element reflected in the words "and copies compared with such copies" occurring in S.63(2) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
The application of prosecution and u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. merits to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.
I have heard Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and Sri C.H. Jadhav, Learned Counsel for C.B.I.
As could be seen from application, the prosecution intends to produce certified copies of certain documents on the ground of non availability of original documents.
In order to satisfy the Court that documents sought to be produced are certified copies of public documental and they could be tendered in evidence as secondary evidence, prosecution should have stated the nature of documents in the application filed u/s 311 Cr.P.C. When the nature of documents is not stated in the application, the Court cannot arrive at a conclusion whether documents are certified copies of public documents and they could be tendered in evidence as secondary evidence.
The accused has right to know about the nature of documents which were sought to be tendered in evidence. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
In the result, I pass the following order:
The petition is accepted. The impugned order is set aside, reserving liberty to the prosecution to file fresh application, giving nature and details of documents sought to be produced.