IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTIEETH DAY OF NOVEMBER THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.6508 OF 2010 Between:- Katragadda Lakshmana Rao …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.6508 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the docket order dated 26-02-2010 in C.C.No.635 of 2007, on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner/accused is facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC in C.C.No.635 of 2007, on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. During the course of trial, the prosecution filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C for receiving certain documents by way of additional evidence. The particulars of the eight documents sought to be filed by the prosecution are mentioned in the petition. When notice of the petition was served on the counsel for the petitioner, it was endorsed therein seeking time for filing counter. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the same day i.e., 26-02-2010, the learned Magistrate, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner for filing counter, passed the impugned order which reads thus: “Heard and allowed as prayed for”. The impugned order does not show that any opportunity was given to the petitioner to file a counter and whether the objections raised by the petitioner at the time of hearing were considered before allowing the petition. The impugned order does not also show that the petitioner gave consent for allowing the application and for receiving the documents. The cryptic order passed by the trial Court allowing the application in spite of the petitioner seeking time for counter, is unsustainable, as the same does not show due application of mind. Such an order cannot be considered to be a judicial order, as the same is bereft of any reasons. 5. Under those circumstances, it is considered just and necessary to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal according to law. The trial Court shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to file a counter and pass a reasoned order after hearing both sides, in accordance with law. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed as stated above. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th November, 2010 Lrkm.