The High Court · 2025

y its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State ad. ...ResPondent 2. Smt. R.Archana, Wo. R.Ram Gopal Rao, Age. 48 yrs' Occ: Business R/o. Plot No.97, 98, House No.2'2-1109/BK, Bathukammakunta' Bagh AmberPet, HYderabad. ... lmplead Petitioner/Proposed Respondent No.2 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under sectlon 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to extend the interim stay granted in lA' No' 1 of 2023 in Crl.RC No. 688 of 2023 dated 02-1 1 2023. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 4g2 of cr.p.c. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petitron, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated ozl11l2o23 passed rn lA.No.0.1 of 2023 in crl.RC.No.6BB of 2023 and to pass such other or further orders as this Honbre Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under section 15,l of c.p.c. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in cc.No.12B7 of 2ol7 on the file of the court of the lv Addl. chref Metroporitan Magistrate, Nampaily. Hyderabad, including appearance of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. THOMAS LLOYD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V.JITHENDER RAO, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINALREVIS ION CASE No.688 OF 2023 ORDER This revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'CrPC') challenging the order

20.09.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.1895 of 2023 in C.C.No.1287 of 2017 on the file of the lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. I have heard Mr. Thomas Lloyd, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondenUState.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are, during the pendency of the calendar case, the prosecution/complainant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1895 of 2023, seeking the leave of the Court to receive certain documents in support of the prosecution's case. Upon considering the submissions advanced, the trial Court allowed the said petition. Aggrieved by this order, the accused/revision petitioner has preferred the present revision.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the prosecution failed to file the impugned documents along with the charge sheet, which contravenes procedural expectations. 2 NTR,] CRLRC 688 202] - Furthermore, it was submitted that the electronic documents, being in the nature of secondary evidence, require certification under Section 65-8 of the lndian Evidence Act, 1872. The counsel emphasized that the charge sheet made no mention of any electronic evidence, such as a pen drive, and that the introduction of such material at a later stage renders it unreliable. lt was also argued that the authenticity of the electronic evidence remains unverified, as it has not been subjected to forensic analysis to establish the genuineness of the voice recordings. On these grounds, the petitioner sought the indulgence of the Court to set aside the impugned order 5. ln response, the learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that the documents in question have been received by the trial Court only subject to proof, relevancy, and objections, and that the admissibitity and authenticity of the said documents can be challenged by the petitioner at the appropriate stage during particularly when trial, the documents are sought to therefore, contended that be marked in the petitioner,s evidence. lt was, apprehension of prejudice is without interference at this stage. merit and does not warrant J NTR,] aRL RC 688 ?021

6. lhave perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel.

7. As per the record, the petition in question was filed solely for the purpose of receiving certain documents, namely: a Sandisk 32GB pen drive containing video footage of the incident, and five photographs, accompanied by a certificate under Section 65-8 of the lndian Evidence Acl, 1872. The Court below, upon considering the circumstances, with an observation that although the matter pertains to the year 2017, as the trial has not yet commenced and the admissibility, relevance, and genuineness of the documents may be examined during the course of trial, particularly during the examination of witnesses and the marking of documents' the Trial Court allowed the Petition. 8. A perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the electronic records submitted by the prosecution were merely received onto the record, and not treated as evidence per se' lt is a well-established principle of law that the mere act of receiving documents on record does not amount to admitting them into evidence. The materials brought on record will attain evidentiary status only upon being formally proved during trial, and such inclusion into the evidentiary corpus would occur at the stage of \- 4 NTR,] CRLRC_688 2021 witness examination and document marking. At that juncture, the opposing party retains the right to raise objections concerning the authenticity, admissibility, and relevance of such documents. I ln light of the foregoing, the mere act of receiving the documents does not, in any manner, prejudice the interests of the petitioner. [/loreover, this Court finds no procedural irregularity, impropriety, or illegality in the reasoning or conclusion arrived at by the trial Court while passing the impugned order. Consequently, no valid ground for interference is made out. Hence, the revision case is liable to be dismissed.

10. Resultantly, the revision case is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The lV Addl Chief lVletropolitan Magistrate' Nampally' Hyderabad One CC to Sri Thomas LIoyd' Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT] 1 2 J 4 Two CD CoPies Y.IR'PSL- Vv HIGH COURT DATED:18l06t}01s ORDER CRLRC.No.688 ot 2023 : i-i'.c ,,/- ,/,.'.- -\' - .' /a j, ..) i, (-, L 23 AU0 n5 ) { '. : sr,4T cp r-. DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE. ,rof,+ ' \cr- ,\<g6 a)