Kandukuri Lakshminarasimha Murthy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Court:High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Judge:Hon'ble Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
Case Status:Dismissed
Order Date:29 Mar 2022
CNR:APHC010131052022
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
For Admission
Before:
Hon'ble D Ramesh
Listed On:
29 Mar 2022
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE NO.: Crl.P.No.2255 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
| Sl.No. | Date | ORDER | OFFICE<br>NOTE |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 29.03.2022 | DR,J | |
| The criminal petition is filed aggrieved by the | |||
| order<br>passed<br>by<br>the<br>III<br>Additional<br>Judicial | |||
| Magistrate<br>of<br>First<br>Class,<br>Kakinada<br>in | |||
| Crl.M.P.544/2021<br>in<br>Cr.No.37/2018<br>in | |||
| C.C.No.1475/2018 dated 30.12.2021.<br>In the said | |||
| C.C, the State-Police has filed an application under | |||
| section<br>242(3)<br>Cr.P.C<br>requesting<br>the<br>Court<br>to | |||
| receive the mobile phone produced by PW4 on | |||
| behalf of the prosecution.<br>Considering the same, | |||
| despite the objection raised by the petitioner herein, | |||
| the Court has passed the following order: | |||
| …Hence, the objections raised by the learned<br>Counsel for respondent are not tenable at this stage. The<br>other contention of the learned counsel is the evidence<br>now sought to be produced is secondary evidence and<br>that it is not admissible without a certificate.<br>As per<br>section 65B is required only if any electric record is sought<br>to<br>be<br>produced<br>without<br>production<br>of<br>the<br>original.<br>However, in the instant case, the prosecution is seeking to<br>produce the original mobile phone of PW4 which is said to<br>be used to take the video and hence, no certificate is<br>required to produce the document. The questions whether<br>the video is really taken in the mobile phone being<br>produced and whether the video is tampered or not are<br>questions of facts which can only be decided after full<br>fledged trial. In the light of the discussion made, it is clear<br>that the objections raised by the respondent for production<br>of the evidence by the prosecution at this stage are not<br>tenable.<br>Hence, the prosecution can be permitted to<br>produce the original mobile phone said to have containing<br>the videograph of execution fo Ex.P2 transaction and the<br>same can be marked subject to objections regarding proof<br>that may be raised at the time of marking.<br>The point if<br>answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner and<br>against the respondent." | |||
| At that point of time, learned Assistant | |||
| Public<br>Prosecutor<br>has<br>sought<br>time<br>for<br>getting | |||
| instructions. | |||
| Hence post on 30.3.2022. | |||
| ______ | |||
| DR, J | |||
| RD | |||
Share This Order
Case History of Orders
Similar Case Search