Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S Green Orbit Apparels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs M/S. Kasturi Marketing on 9 July, 2014
Author: R. K. Bag
Bench: R. K. Bag
11 09.07.2014 GB Court No.33 CRR 1342 of 2014 M/s Green Orbit Apparels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
....petitioners Vs. M/s. Kasturi Marketing Mr. Sanajit Kr. Ghosh Mr. Dibyendu Koley .......For the Petitioners Mr. Anirban Mitra ........For the O. P. Mr. Anirban Mitra, learned counsel appears on behalf of the Opposite Party.
The petitioners have preferred this criminal revision challenging the order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Calcutta in Case No. C/685 of 2011, by which learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the petitioners praying for expunging the document marked Ext. 4/14 in course of trial.
Mr. Sanajit Kr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that one document was admitted into evidence and marked Ext.4/14 during examination of P. W.1 and as such the petitioners prayed for expunging the said document from the evidence on the ground, inter alia,
(i) that the document containing the bill was not issued by the company,
(ii) that the signature bearing on the said document is not legible, and
(iii) the rubber stamp used on the said document is forged.
According to Mr. Ghosh, the document marked Ext. 4/14 should have been expunged from the evidence by learned Magistrate but the same was not done and as such the order passed by learned Magistrate is challenged before this court.
It appears from the materials on record that learned Magistrate has started recording the examination-in-chief of P. W.1 and in course of examination-in-chief of P. W. 1 the document in question is admitted into evidence and marked Ext. 4/14. Any document can be admitted into evidence if the document is proved by way of best evidence that is either through primary evidence or through secondary evidence and if the document is found to be relevant on the touch-stone of the provisions of Section 5 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act. The evidentiary value of any document should not be confused with the relevancy and admissibility of the document.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that the petitioners are anxious to establish before the trial court that this document has no evidentiary value, because no argument is advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the document is not relevant or not admissible in evidence. The petitioners are at liberty to cross-examine P. W. 1 to establish that the document has no evidentiary value or that the document has been forged or that the document has been procured or fabricated for ulterior purpose. Since the petitioners have not yet cross-examined P. W. 1, the petitioners have ample opportunity to establish the points urged before this court by way of cross-examination of P. W.1.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this criminal revision. The criminal revision is dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned court below for favour of information and necessary action.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
( R. K. Bag, J. )