IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1274 OF 2010 Between: P.Suryanagaryana … PETITIONER And The State of A.P. & 3 others … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1274 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. This revision petition is filed by the de facto complainant represented by General Power of Attorney holder questioning order dated 09.07.2010, passed by the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, in Crl.M.P.No.4757 of 2010 in C.C.No.122 of 2005, dismissing the petition filed by the prosecution on the ground that earlier petition for the same relief was rejected. 2. Contention of the respondent’s counsel that G.P.A. holder cannot maintain the revision petition without obtaining permission of the Court, may not be available on criminal side because no provision similar to Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice on criminal side is pointed out by the petitioner’s counsel. 3. Previously, the prosecution filed Crl.M.P.No.4369 of 2010 in the lower Court to receive ten documents. The lower Court received six documents and rejected to receive document Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 of the list therein on the ground that they are photostat copies of documents and so, are not admissible in evidence as secondary evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained two copies of resolutions of the society through the procedure prescribed by Right to Information Act and obtained certified copies of two other documents from Civil Court. Now, the prosecution filed the present petition in the lower Court to receive those four documents. Since the defect pointed out by the lower Court in the previous order dated 28.06.2010 was rectified by the prosecution, the lower Court should have received those documents and erred in rejecting those documents. Of course, receiving all those documents will be only subject to proof and relevance and it is open to the lower Court to assess evidentiary value of those documents at the time of disposal of the main case. 4. Subject to the above observations, the criminal revision petition is allowed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 18, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1274 OF 2010 August 18, 2010 KL