Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Desu Rajasekhara Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 November, 2022
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9055 2022
ORDER:
The petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.811 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Kadapa District, for offences under 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The complainant while filing the complaint had filed an online copy of the track consignment to show that the legal notice issued on behalf of the complainant had been delivered to the petitioner herein. Thereafter, in the course of the proceeding, the complaint had filed Criminal M.P.No.233 of 2021 under Section 243 of Cr.P.C to produce a reply letter issued by the postal authorities on 02.11.2020 stating that the legal notice sent on behalf of the complainant was delivered on 23.09.2020 to the petitioner herein.
3. The petitioner had objected to the production of the said document on various grounds, which were rejected by the Magistrate and the application was allowed.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the Revisional Court by way of Crl.R.P. No. 7 of 2022 contending 2 that the document has been filed at a belated stage and the said document is, in any event, inadmissible evidence.
5. The Revisional Court after considering these objections had held that the document that was sought to be produced by the complainant is not a document which is taking, the petitioner herein, by surprise and that it is only a document supporting the contents of the complaint and the online copy of the track consignment report which has already been filed by the complainant before the Trial Court. In those circumstances, the revision was dismissed by an order dated 30.09.2022.
6. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Criminal Petition raising the contentions raised before the Courts below. Apart from this, a fresh contention has also been raised that the provision of law under which the application had been filed is wrongly mentioned. It is contended that Section 243 of Cr.P.C applies only to evidence that is produced by the accused and the said provision cannot be pressed into service by the prosecution.
7. On merits, this Court does not find any reasons to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court or the Revisional Court. On the ground of the wrong provision of law being mentioned, it is settled law that mere mention of a wrong 3 provision of law cannot vitiated an order, if the order can be sustained under any other provision of law. In the present case 242 (3) of Cr.P.C appears to be the appropriate provision as the Court would have to take into account any evidence that is produced by the prosecution at the time of the trial and in any event the production of the document under question is only in the nature of corroboration of the existing documents which are already filed at the time of the filing of the complaint itself.
8. In the circumstances, there are no merits in the Criminal Petition and accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 16.11.2022 BSM 4 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9055 of 2022 16.11.2022 BSM