THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. CRL.PETITION No. 9433 of 2010. ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order dt. 13.08.2010 in Crl.M.P.No. 2058 of 2010 in C.C.No. 258 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. The petitioners are being prosecuted for the offences under Sections 323, 448, 385 and 290 IPC before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and during the course of trial, the learned A.P.P filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the prosecution seeking to condone the delay in filing photographs and video CD taken at the time of occurrence and also to permit the prosecution to exhibit them in evidence on behalf of the prosecution. The petitioners filed a counter opposing the application on the ground that the provision of law is wrongly mentioned and the proposed material objects cannot be exhibited without filing a separate petition for recalling the concerned witness and therefore sought to dismiss the petition. The learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada after hearing both sides allowed the petition and the learned Magistrate recorded the reasons for allowing the petition as under: “Perused the material available on record including the charge sheet, Part-II CD statements and the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 and I find sufficient grounds and merits in the plea raised by the learned A.P.P. and on filing of these two M.Os. along with the charge sheet is only bona fide omission and not with any mala fide intention. Further merely because the correct provision of law is not quoted by the learned A.P.P. to receive the M.Os. that alone is not a ground to dismiss the petition in limini. Quoting incorrect provision of law is not a tenable ground at all. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, I find sufficient grounds and the petition is fit to be allowed as by allowing it no prejudice would be caused as the accused will have an opportunity to impeach the evidence and M.Os. sought to be marked.” The learned trial court after exercising it’s judicial discretion allowed the petition and permitted the prosecution to exhibit the material objects i.e. photographs and video C.D. taken at the time of occurrence and this court is not supposed to interfere with the judicial discretion exercised by the trial court. Further, as observed by the trial court, the petitioners will have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness through whom the prosecution exhibits the material objects and can dispute their genuineness. The petitioners cannot agitate that the material objects cannot be taken in evidence at all. In my considered view, the learned trial court rightly exercised it’s discretion and such discretion cannot be interfered in this criminal petition particularly in the absence of any illegality or irregularity in the order of the learned trial court. For the reasons stated above, I see no merits in the criminal petition and accordingly dismiss the same. ____________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 22.09.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. CRL.PETITION No. 9433 of 2010. ORDER: DT. 22.09.2010.