Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2006
  6. /
  7. January

R.N. Kapoor Son Of Late L.N. Kapoor vs State Of U.P. And Central Bureau Of ...

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|19 May, 2006

JUDGMENT / ORDER

JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Chandra, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri G.S. Hajela, learned Counsel for the C.B.I.
2. This application has been filed by the applicant R.N. Kapoor against the order dated 28.4.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge Bhrastachar Nivaran (Central) Lucknow in case No. 1 of 1991 under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C. P.S. C.B.I. Lucknow.
3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that vide order 28.4.2006 one witness Umesh was summoned to prove the Photostat copy of the document but subsequently the photo state copy of the document was admitted by the prosecution. Therefore, the trial court has passed the order dated 26.5.2006 by which the application for summoning the witness Umesh has been rejected on the ground that the document concerned has already been admitted by the prosecution. The impugned order dated 26.5.2006 is illegal it may be set aside otherwise a controversy shall be created by the prosecution by saying that the photostat copy of any document is not admissible.
4. It is opposed by the G.S. Hajela learned Counsel for the C.B.I. By submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned order because the prosecution has already admitted the photostat copy of the document and subsequently, at any stage there shall be no controversy about the admissibility of the document concerned because it has already been admitted.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri G.S. Hajela, I am of the view that once a photostat copy of a document has been admitted by the prosecution its proving is not required by another evidence and the prosecution shall have no right to challenge its admissibility. Impugned order is not suffering from any illegality or irregularity. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.
6. Accordingly this application is dismissed.
7. A copy of the order be given to the learned Counsel for the applicant on payment of usual charges and the same may be given to Sri G.S. Hajela, learned Counsel for the C.B.I. also.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

R.N. Kapoor Son Of Late L.N. Kapoor vs State Of U.P. And Central Bureau Of ...

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
19 May, 2006
Judges
  • R Singh