State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. vs For Respondent(s)

: Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order Reserved on : 28/04/2025 Pronounced on : 05/05/2025 izkFkhZ@;kph dh vksj ls mDr ,dyihB vkijkf/kd fofo/k ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk fo}ku~ U;k;ky; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] Øe&07 t;iqj egkuxj] f}rh; }kjk izdj.k la[;k 25@2025 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 17-03-2025 ls vius vkidks O;fFkr eglwl djrs gq, mDr vkns'k dks vikLr fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk ds lkFk izLrqr dh x;h gSA izkFkhZ@;kph }kjk mDr ;kfpdk ds ek/;e ls U;k;ky; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] Øe&07 t;iqj egkuxj] f}rh; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 17-03-2025 dks bl vk/kkj ij pqukSrh nh gS fd vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk ihMCY;w 1 bdcky eksgEen dh lk{; ds ek/;e ls QksVksLVsV dkWih izn'kZ 1 ls 12 iznf'kZr djk, x, gSa vkSj mDr nLrkost iznf'kZr djkrs le; ewy nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd, x, gSaA bl lanHkZ esa izfrijh{k.k ds le; fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g vkifÙk izLrqr dh xbZ Fkh fd ewy nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd, x, gSa vkSj fof/k vuqlkj QksVksdkWih ij izn'kZ ekdZ ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl lanHkZ esa izkFkhZ@;kph }kjk fnukad 02-03-2025 dks mDr [2025:RJ-JP:18712] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2436/2025] iznf'kZr fd, tkus okys izys[kksa ds lanHkZ esa vkifÙk izLrqr dh xbZ Fkh] ijarq U;k;ky; }kjk vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 17-03-2025 ds ek/;e ls mDr vkifÙk vLohdkj dj izkFkhZ@;kph dk izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt dj fn;k x;kA mDr vkns'k fof/k ds Li"V izko/kkuksa ds foijhr gSA ewy nLrkost U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr ugha gq, Fks vkSj muds izLrqr gq, fcuk izn'kZ 1 ls 12 QksVksdkWih ij izn'kZ ekdZ fd, x, gSaA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 17-03-2025 vikLr fd;k tkdj mDr nLrkost vLohdkj fd;k tk,aA izkFkhZ@;kph vf/koDrk us ;kfpdk dh cgl ds varxZr ;kfpdk esa mYysf[kr mijksDr fcanqvksa dh iqujko`fÙk dh gSA fo}ku~ yksd vfHk;kstd us fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dks fof/k vuq:i gksuk mYysf[kr fd;k gSA mudk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ@;kph }kjk mDr nLrkost ihMCY;w 1 bdcky eksgEen ds ek/;e ls iznf'kZr djrs le; dksbZ vkifÙk izLrqr ugha dh xbZ FkhA bl lanHkZ esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us R.V.F. Venkatachala Gounder vs Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Anr. (2003) 8 SCC 752 esa ;g er izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd izys[kksa ij izn'kZ vafdr djrs le; bl izdkj dh vkifÙk izLrqr dh tk ldrh gS vkSj i'pkr~orhZ izØe ij i{kdkj dks] ;fn nLrkost iznf'kZr gks x, gSa] rks mu ij vkifÙk djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA blh izdkj U;kf;d n`"Vkar Sonu @ Amar vs State Of Haryana 2017 AIR AC 3441 esa Hkh mijksDr vuqlkj gh er fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gSA izLrqr izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@;kph }kjk ftl fnu mDr nLrkost iznf'kZr gq,] mUgsa iznf'kZr djus ds lanHkZ esa dksbZ vkifÙk izLrqr ugha dh xbZ vkSj mÙkjksÙkj izkFkZuk i= fnukad 02-03-2025 ds ek/;e ls mDr vkifÙk izLrqr dh xbZ] tks vkifÙk Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA cgl lquh xbZA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us R.V.F. Venkatachala Gounder vs Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Anr. (2003) 8 SCC 752 esa fuEufyf[kr er izdV fd;k gS fd%& [2025:RJ-JP:18712] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2436/2025] ''Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The later proposition is a rule of fair play.'' blh izdkj Sonu @ Amar vs State Of Haryana 2017 AIR AC 3441 esa Hkh ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& ''The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken [2025:RJ-JP:18712] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2436/2025] before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit.'' vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa lacaf/kr U;k;ky; }kjk mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa of.kZr fl)karksa ds vuq:i gh izkFkhZ@;kph dh ;kfpdk vkns'k fnukad 17-03-2025 ds ek/;e ls vLohdkj dh gSA eSa mDr vkns'k esa dksbZ voS/kkfudrk ;k =qfV ugha ikrk gw¡A vr% izkFkhZ@;kph }kjk /kkjk 528 ch,u,l,l ds varxZr izLrqr mDr ;kfpdk vLohdkj dj [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J MOHIT/ 9

: Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order Reserved on : 28/04/2025 Pronounced on : 05/05/2025 izkFkhZ@;kph dh vksj ls mDr ,dyihB vkijkf/kd fofo/k ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk fo}ku~ U;k;ky; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] Øe&07 t;iqj egkuxj] f}rh; }kjk izdj.k la[;k 25@2025 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 17-03-2025 ls vius vkidks O;fFkr eglwl djrs gq, mDr vkns'k dks vikLr fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk ds lkFk izLrqr dh x;h gSA izkFkhZ@;kph }kjk mDr ;kfpdk ds ek/;e ls U;k;ky; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] Øe&07 t;iqj egkuxj] f}rh; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 17-03-2025 dks bl vk/kkj ij pqukSrh nh gS fd vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk ihMCY;w 1 bdcky eksgEen dh lk{; ds ek/;e ls QksVksLVsV dkWih izn'kZ 1 ls 12 iznf'kZr djk, x, gSa vkSj mDr nLrkost iznf'kZr djkrs le; ewy nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd, x, gSaA bl lanHkZ esa izfrijh{k.k ds le; fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g vkifÙk izLrqr dh xbZ Fkh fd ewy nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd, x, gSa vkSj fof/k vuqlkj QksVksdkWih ij izn'kZ ekdZ ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl lanHkZ esa izkFkhZ@;kph }kjk fnukad 02-03-2025 dks mDr [2025:RJ-JP:18712] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2436/2025] iznf'kZr fd, tkus okys izys[kksa ds lanHkZ esa vkifÙk izLrqr dh xbZ Fkh] ijarq U;k;ky; }kjk vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 17-03-2025 ds ek/;e ls mDr vkifÙk vLohdkj dj izkFkhZ@;kph dk izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt dj fn;k x;kA mDr vkns'k fof/k ds Li"V izko/kkuksa ds foijhr gSA ewy nLrkost U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr ugha gq, Fks vkSj muds izLrqr gq, fcuk izn'kZ 1 ls 12 QksVksdkWih ij izn'kZ ekdZ fd, x, gSaA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 17-03-2025 vikLr fd;k tkdj mDr nLrkost vLohdkj fd;k tk,aA izkFkhZ@;kph vf/koDrk us ;kfpdk dh cgl ds varxZr ;kfpdk esa mYysf[kr mijksDr fcanqvksa dh iqujko`fÙk dh gSA fo}ku~ yksd vfHk;kstd us fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dks fof/k vuq:i gksuk mYysf[kr fd;k gSA mudk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ@;kph }kjk mDr nLrkost ihMCY;w 1 bdcky eksgEen ds ek/;e ls iznf'kZr djrs le; dksbZ vkifÙk izLrqr ugha dh xbZ FkhA bl lanHkZ esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us R.V.F. Venkatachala Gounder vs Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Anr. (2003) 8 SCC 752 esa ;g er izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd izys[kksa ij izn'kZ vafdr djrs le; bl izdkj dh vkifÙk izLrqr dh tk ldrh gS vkSj i'pkr~orhZ izØe ij i{kdkj dks] ;fn nLrkost iznf'kZr gks x, gSa] rks mu ij vkifÙk djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA blh izdkj U;kf;d n`"Vkar Sonu @ Amar vs State Of Haryana 2017 AIR AC 3441 esa Hkh mijksDr vuqlkj gh er fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gSA izLrqr izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@;kph }kjk ftl fnu mDr nLrkost iznf'kZr gq,] mUgsa iznf'kZr djus ds lanHkZ esa dksbZ vkifÙk izLrqr ugha dh xbZ vkSj mÙkjksÙkj izkFkZuk i= fnukad 02-03-2025 ds ek/;e ls mDr vkifÙk izLrqr dh xbZ] tks vkifÙk Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA cgl lquh xbZA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us R.V.F. Venkatachala Gounder vs Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Anr. (2003) 8 SCC 752 esa fuEufyf[kr er izdV fd;k gS fd%& [2025:RJ-JP:18712] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2436/2025] ''Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The later proposition is a rule of fair play.'' blh izdkj Sonu @ Amar vs State Of Haryana 2017 AIR AC 3441 esa Hkh ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& ''The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken [2025:RJ-JP:18712] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2436/2025] before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit.'' vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa lacaf/kr U;k;ky; }kjk mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa of.kZr fl)karksa ds vuq:i gh izkFkhZ@;kph dh ;kfpdk vkns'k fnukad 17-03-2025 ds ek/;e ls vLohdkj dh gSA eSa mDr vkns'k esa dksbZ voS/kkfudrk ;k =qfV ugha ikrk gw¡A vr% izkFkhZ@;kph }kjk /kkjk 528 ch,u,l,l ds varxZr izLrqr mDr ;kfpdk vLohdkj dj [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J MOHIT/ 9