Nawab Mohd Moizuddin Khan v. The State Of Telangana And 7 Others

THE HON'BLE Dr JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER Cr im in al Revision Case No.8 5 1 of 2 0 1 8 ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner/ complainant, to set aside the order, dated 14.03.2018, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2126 of 2017 in C.C.No.400 of 2013 by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner/ complainant under Section 65(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to receive the Photostat copies of certain documents was dismissed by the Court below.

2 .

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/ complainant, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent-State and perused the record.

3 .

The learned counsel for the petitioner/ complainant would submit that the petitioner was not allowed to mark the Photostat copies of the documents. The petitioner is entitled to do so under Section 65(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('the Act', for brevity). The Court below erred in not allowing the application of the petitioner.

4 .

As per the material placed before this Court, the petitioner intended to mark the photostat copies of Marriage Certificate, dated 23.03.1984, Ration Card of A.1 and A.2, Copy of application in Application No.1059 of 2006, Gift Deed, dated

13.11.1985 and affidavit, dated 20.02.2005, copy of mutation proceedings No.B/ 27308/ 2009, dated 16.04.2012, Memorandum of Gift Deed, dated 07.06.1973, on the ground that the originals of the aforementioned documents are in the custody of the accused persons. The petitioner can obtain the certified copies of all the aforementioned documents, except the Gift Deed, from the concerned authorities. There are no details of Gift Deed, as to whether the said Gift Deed is oral or registered one. If the said Gift Deed is a registered one, the certified copy of the same can also be obtained, as it is compulsorily registerable. The Court below, while dealing with the subject application, had given elaborate reasons. Before invoking Section 65(a) of the Act, the petitioner has to exhaust remedy available to him under Section 66 of the Act.

The petitioner did not choose to do so. This Court does not see any infirmity in the impugned order of the Court below. There is nothing to take a different view. The petitioner has to exhaust the remedy available under Section 66 of the Act and thereafter, he has to move an application under Section 65(a) of the Act. The Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5 .

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand closed.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 02nd April, 2018 Bvv