1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Leave to Appeal Application No. 35/09 With Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2009 D.N. Yadav ……………. Applicant/ Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ………….Respondents Dated : May 4, 2010 HON. DHARAM VEER,J. Heard Mr. Rattan Lal learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant and Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and also perused the entire material on record. In brief the case of the applicant/ appellant is that he moved a complaint u/s 500 Cr.P.C. which was allowed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet vide judgment and order dated 8.8.2005 thereby convicting the respondent No.2-N.S. Bisht u/s 500 IPC and sentencing him to one year’s S.I. with fine of Rs. 4,000/- and in default three month’s further imprisonment was awarded. Against that judgment and order dated 8.8.2006, respondent no. 2 preferred an appeal which was allowed by learned Sessions Judge, Almora vide judgment and order dated 8.4.2009 whereby the judgment and order passed by J.M., Ranikhet dated 8.8.2006 was quashed. Now, the appellant/ complainant has filed the present appeal with leave to appeal application. On a careful perusal of the judgment and order passed by the appellate court, I find that the appellate court found 2 that the documents adduced in evidence, on which the trial court found the accused guilty under the offence in which he was charged, were the photocopies. It was also rightly found that neither the original copies thereof were produced nor those documents were got proved and it is settled law that since when the documents are not proved by the original, they are not admissible to be read into evidence. It was further rightly held that the signatures over the documents, said to be signed by the respondent no.2/ appellant- N.S. Bisht, were also not got verified by some handwriting expert in order to prove that if actually bears the signatures of the accused. Accordingly, the appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and the documents relying upon which the trial court found the accused guilty and convicted him, were not admissible into evidence as per law. Therefore, the order passed by the trial court was rightly been quashed by the appellate court. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire material available on record, I am of the view that the appellate court has correctly assessed the entire material available on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the order passed by the trial court was not correct and justified. On a perusal of the judgment and order passed by the appellate court, I am of the view that there is no ground to grant leave to appeal. Therefore, the leave to appeal is refused. Leave to appeal application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) May 4, 2010 Rajeev Dang