The High Court · 2025

Telangana, Represented through pubtic prosecutor, High Court 2 lYgfO Layaq Ali S/o Yousuf Ali Saab, Aged 60 years, Occ_ Business, R/o H.No. 6-8-133, Shamshergunj. Tandur - ....RespondenURespondent Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the order dated 02112t2o24 in crl.M.p.No. 117 of zo2q in c.c. No. 223 of 2o11, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First class, Tandur, Vikarabad District. ... Res po n d e nUAcc u sed CRIMINAL PETITION NO:16171 OF 2024 Between: Mohammed Vilayath .Ali, S/o Mohammed yousuf Ali, Aged 69 Business. and Agriculture , _\_o 141A, GDA Darshanapur" Layout, Sangtrashwadi, Kalaburgi - 5BS1 01. years, Occ. t\/.G.Road, AND ... Petitioners/Petitioner/ Defacto Complainant 1 The state of relangana, Represented through pubric prosecutor, High court of Telangana. Hyderabad. Z Ygla Laya_q Ati, S/o yousuf Alisaab Aged 60 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 6-8-133, Shamshergunj, Tandur. ....RespondenURespondent Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High co;;;;y;e ... RespondenUAccused pleased to quash the order dated 02-12-2024 in Crl.M.P.No. 53 of 2024 in C.C. No. 223 of 2011, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tandur, Vikarabad Diskict, in the interest of justice. These Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mrs. K Annapurna Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the IVlr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. The Court made the following: ORDER Ii THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMIN AL PETITIO N NOs.16 136 16170 and 16 171 of 2024 COMMO N ORDER Criminal Petition No.16136 of 2024 has been filed assailing the order dated 02.12 2024 in Crl.M P No l 18 of 2024 whereby the prayer for issuance of summons to the present Chief/Central Public lnformation Officer' lndian Security Press' Nashik Road' Maharashtra- 422101 to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution and to produce documents in respect of information provided under RTI Act vide its letterNo.1363/RTl-274dated29.04.2011alongwithitsannexuresi.e. letterdated2l'll.2oogandinvoicecopybeforetheCourt,hasbeen dismissed

2. Criminal Petition No.16170 ol 2024 has been filed aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 02 12 2024 in Crl M'P No 1 17 of 2024 lot issuanceofsummonstothepresentDeputylnspectorGeneral, Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad and to direct him to give evidence as prosecution witness and to produce the entire records in respect of the report issued Memo No RTI/1399/2024 dated 21 06 2014 along with its enclosures

3. Criminal Petition No 16171 ot 2024 has been filed challenging the dismissal order dated 02 122024 in Crl'M P No 53 of 2024 $e-. -.. '''' -_: -..t .t,r.* ti:a.:. -:: __t ".":xa1xt I I I i' I I i I I I I I 2 Crlp-16 136, 16 1 70&181?1 1T#; petition filed under Section 31 1 of CrpC to recall pWs.1 , 3, 4 and i for the purpose of further chief examination and marking the reft out documents filed in the case.

4. As the above miscellaneous petitions were filed in C.C.No.223 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, Vikarabad District and as the reliefs prayed for are intertwined, these petitions were heard together and are being determined in this common order

5. I have heard Ms.K.Annapurna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao veerama[a, rearned Additionar pubric Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No..l . 6 ln spite of due service the respondent No.2/accused chose to remain silent

7. The relevant facts are that the petitioner/complaina nt has filed police report afieging that the respondent No.2/accused created a forged agreement of sale by manipulating non judicial stamp paper and his signature to knock away the property admeasuring Ac,0.2g guntas in Sy.No.'1OlE and Ac.0.29 guntas in Sy.No.1O/EE situated at Saipur village of Tandur mandal, Ranga Reddy District thereby to cause wrongful loss to the petitioner. Basing on the report Crime No_226 of 2008 was registered and after due investigation charge sheet was laid ':**Eipry -.; I I I I I I i l I t i 3 NTR,J Crlp_16136, 16170&16t7 t 2021 and Calendar Case vide CC No.223 of 2011 has been registered for the offences under Sections 420,468 and 471 of lPC.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant would submit that the respondent No.2/accused had created an agreement of sale/Ex.P-5 dated 1'1.09.2006 by manipulating a non judicial stamp paper bearing No. H 375588 and forged his signature on it. Further to make out falsity of the document the petitioner/de facto complainani pursued the RTI proceedings at Nashik Security Printing Press/Ex. P-2 and letter from Deputy lnspector General of Registrations and Stamps, HyderabadiEx.P-3. The responses elicited that by the Serial number the stamp paper was printed on 1 1.03.2008 and came into market on 21 .05.2008. This fact clinches the impossibility of the execution of agreement of sale on that stamp paper in 2006. However during trial the prosecution failed to properly elrcit these facts and got marked the documents along with its annexures. Thus recall of examined witnesses and summoning the officials concerned for properly brining the fact on to record and for marking of the documents. Further pleaded that rejection of the petition filed by the kial Court would cause serious prejudice to the prosecution case and it would affect the valuable rights of the de facto complainant. Further pleads that the evidence, recall and examination of witnesses would clarify the facts for effective adjudication. That apart, the respondent No.2/accused ia* 4 NTR,J Crlp 15136,15170& 1617 t _2024 would have opportunity of cross examination, As such allowing the petition will not cause any prejudice and in deed sub serve the justice. Hence prayed for interference.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner during deliberation fairly admits that further examination of pWs.1 , 3, 4 and 5 and marking of relevant documents would be sufficient to prove and establish the related fact. Thus prayed for considering the prayer in Crl.M.p.No.53 of 2024 (Crl.P No _16171 ot 2024). '10. Learned Additional public prosecutor would submit that the calendar case is of the year 2011 and the witnesses were examined in 2022 and the de facto complainant came up with present petition in 2024. Further the prosecution got marked letter addressed to Nashik Security Printing Press/Ex.p-2 and letter from the Deputy lnspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad to the Commissioner, lnspector General, Regiskations and Stamps, Hyderabad/Ex. p_3 and sworn statement of Abdul eadeer/LW_S as Ex.p4 and the relevant witnesses were examined and the evidence of stamp vendor/pW_S and stamp register/sub-Registrar, charminar are sufficient to estabrish the pleaded aspect by the petitioner/de facto complainant. He fairly admits that the reply said to have been issued by the Nashik Security printing Press not marked and the other witnesses could have been specifically questioned to elicit the disputed fact. However the prayer for 5 NTR,J Crlp 16136,16170&7617 I 2024 summoning present Chief/Central Public lnformation Officer, lndian Security Press, Nashik and the present Deputy lnspector General, Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad may not be required. Thus prayed for passing the orders on merits.

11. I have perused the materials on record

12. The specific pleading of the petitioner/de facto complainant is that the non judicial stamp paper of 2008 has been used to show that the agreement of sale was executed on '1 1.09.2006 and this fact sets the seal on the fact of fabrication cf the document. Further examining the PWs.'l , 3, 4 and 5 on this specific aspect and getting marked the left out documents on file is necessary to prove this foundational aspect. ln the impugned order the trial Court declined the prayer on the ground of belated filing of the petition and the effort of the petitioner to bring the annexures of Ex.P -2 which was refused by the Court and the same was affirmed by this Court vide Criminal Petition No.72 of

2022. '13. lt is pertinent to note that Section 311 of CrPC empowers the Court to summon, recall and re-examine the witnesses already examined to ensure just decision by enabling it to access and relevant .evidence. I q-ffir' ,,/ i i I I I i i I ! I I I i I' I I ; i t i : ii,!'. ir.t;:!t1t;ti-JI,iil1l i I I t I t l!II I 6 NTR,] Crlp_ 16136, 16 170& t6\7 r_2024

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajaram prasad yadav v. State of Bihar and another - 2013(14) SCC 461 considering the setiled positions enumerated principles to be borne in mind by the Courts while dealing with an application under Section 311 of CrpC. For better appreciation, the relevant para No.23 is extracted as hereunder: "23. From a conspectus consideration of the above decisions, while dealing with an application under Section 3 j 1 Cr.p.C. read along with Section 138 of the Evidence Act, we feel the following principtes will have to be borne in mind by the Courts a) Whether the Court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to be led in under Section 31 1 is noted by the Court for a just decision of a case? b) The exercrse of the widest discretionary power under Section 31'1 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated. c) lf evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the iust decision of the case, it is the power of the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person. d) The exercise of power under Section 31.1 Cr.p.C. should be resorted to gnly with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will lead to a iust and correct decision of the case. e) The €xercise of the said power cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case, unless the facts and circumstan6es of the case make it apparent that the exercise of power by the Court would result in causing serious prejUdice to the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice. f) The wide discretionary power should be exercjsed judiciously and not arbitrarily. g) The Court must satisfy itself that it was in every respect essential to examine such a witness or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case. h) The object of Section 311 Cr.p.C. simultaneously imposes a duty on the Court to determine the truth and to render a iust decision. \ t 'n'.dr -- . -/r 7 NTR,] Crlp_16136,16170&161.7 t 2024 i) The Court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary, not because it would be impossible to pronounce the judgment without it, but because there would be a failure of justice without such evidence being considered. j) Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense shoutd be the safe guard, while exercising the discretion The Court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. k) The Court should be conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. ln that parity of reasoning, it would be safe to erf in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution agains[ posiible prejudice at the cost of the accused. The Court should bear in mind that irnproper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead to undesirable results. l) The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of the party. m) The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely to be tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party. n) The power under Section 311 Cr.p.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care, ciution and circumspection. The Court should bear in mind that fair kial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right.

15. Thus by the guidelines it shall be held that the power under Section 311 of CrPC is wider and has to be exercised to meet the endowed responsibility on the Court to determine the truth and to reach just decision. The Court shall be cautious in making a balance between reaching just and correct decision and miscarriage of justice. Further in determining the petition, the Court must consider whether non allowance of the examination/evidence prayed for would be a fgA6?e of I j i i I '; I t_ 1 8 Crl p- 1 6 1 36, 1 6 1 7O&, U r r r]r'#; justice. Thus the power under section 311 of crpc has to be invoked to meet the ends of justice balancing the interests of accused and victim

16. ln the instant case, the petitioner is seeking recall of already examined witnesses for further examination to specifically make out the fact of printing and sale of non judicial stamp in the year 200g. Though the witnesses were already examined and considering the essentiality of the fact to render just decision, allowing the petitioner for recall and examining PWs.1, 3, 4 and 5 is found proper to meet the ends of justice.

17. For the aforesaid, these criminal petitions are answered as follows D ii) Crl.P.Nos.'16136 and .16170 of 2024 are dismissed as not pressed. The impugned order dated 02.12.2024 in Crl.M.p.No.53 of 2024 in C.C.No.223 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, Vikarabad District is set aside and the witnesses i.e. pWs.1 , 3, 4 and 5 are recalled for further chief examination and to mark left out material documents. Accordingly, Crl.p.No.16j71 of 2024 stands allowed. I t --,r--:q€*Ff.sEF .*>:l*.t:- :,;/ :...!:' -' t-11! ' .: 't I 9 NTR,] Crlp_16 136, 16 1 70& 76t7 t_2024 iii) The trial Court shall fix the schedule for examining the recalled witnesses pWs.1,3, 4 and 5 within a time frame of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The witnesses shall be chief examined by the prosecution with the assistance of the petitioner on the aspect of the origin and sale of the disputed non judicial stamp and the defence shall cross examine the witnesses on the same day, saving the exceptionaI crrcumstances beyond control. iv) Allowing of the petition shall not be construed as setting aside the orders of the trial Court in Crl.M.p.No.338 of 2021 and the order in Crl.p.No.72 of 2022 in regard to the documents considered therein. Accordingly ordered. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/-A.SREENIVASA REDDY TANT REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// 1js ECTION OFFICER '1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, Vikarabad District. 2. The Station House Officer, p.S., Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. 3. One CC to Mrs. K Annapurna Reddy Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two ccs to The Additiona]pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies MMT/PSL M. I I I i I I I I i HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 lHE s )-4 (to 7 o^ 2 5 rlJE 205 ,\ t:) () i ou", )r. ..-./ COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.16136, 16170 AND 16171 ot 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.s 16136 & 16170 OF 2024 ARE DTSMISSED AS NOT PRESSED ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITTON NO.16171 OF 2024 t\