IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. Q'(yL[ /2010 PETITION UNDERSECTION 48^0F THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PETITIONERS 1. Prakash Pal, S/o late Dhansai Pal, aged about 33 years, 2. Dulari Bai, Wd/o late Dhansai Pal, aged about 53 years, •^s^- _<a~;.''" _^« ..-••'"" .fe:%^^**** ,^-;";^ - ^^D ff^"' ...--""^0^> \^ Vikas Pal S/o late Dhamsai Pal, aged about 28 years, All are R/o Village Chikhli, Ward No. 3, Near Government Press, Pyarelal Chowk, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Through: The District Magistrate, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) •^' Being aggrieved by the impugned order dtd 05.04.2010, ^ passed in Criminal Revision No. 13/2010, by the Court of District Judge, Raipur, thereby confirming the order dated 02:12.2009 passed in criminal case No. 169/5009 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur in case of State of C.G. Vs. Prakash Pal and others, the petitioners prefer this petition of the following facts and grounds amongst others. A ^^^^ svs^s '^—-^^^^^.^^ Single Bench ; Hon'bls Mr. Justice Prjti'nker Diwaker Cr.M.P. Pr'akash Pa! and others. Versus State of Chhattl.SQarh Shri Anoop M.ajumdar, counssi for the petitioners. Shr-i Vaibhav Sovsrdhan. Panej Lawyer for the Stat®. PETITION UN&ER SECTION 482 OF THE CO&E OP CR2MJNAL 'nrphi OR & e » (05.05.2010) Present petition filed under Seetion 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directsd aQGinst the imDuaned order dcrted 5.4.2010 passad by District Judge, Roipur in Criminal Revssro.n-No. 13/2010 whereby whiis dismissing the revision, the r'evisional Court has offirmed the order dated 02.12.2009 passed by the Judiciai Magistrate, First CSass, Raipur. 2. Brief facts of the case ore that the petitioners are facing criminai case No. 165/2009 for the offence punishabie unde" Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Pena! Code. It appears that certcin evidence has aire.ady been recorded by the court beiow and at the time of recording t'ne •evidence, an appiication was filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 65 of the Indion Evidence Act on 23.10.2009 subm'itting in jt that they be permitted the adduce secondary evldence. and to get exhibited photocopie.s of two letters do.ted 13.8.2001 and , 11-10.2001 aliegedly written by the complainant to her husband. \ This application was rejected by the learnsd Magistrate .on .' 2.12.2009 by ment'oning thot jetters are not very ciear, legibie ss^.iftss^e^. I.. ^-1 / ^ and. ther'efore congiderina the facts & circumstsncgs of the case, petitioners cannot be perm't+ed to iesd the secondary evidence, however the Court has permitted the petitiorsers to putfort'h the question to the witne-sses o" the basis of these two Istters. In the revision, while affirming the order of AAo.ai-stro-te. revisional court has affirmed the order by sayina that the order of the Mo.gistrate is in accordance with ic.w. 3. I ho.ye he-ard counse! for the parties and perused the materia! avaiiable on record. 4. Even in the appiic Indicm Evidence Act, ths of these two ietters ion filed under Sectlon 65 of the stitioners have not oivsn the detaiis the efforts made by them for searchinq these two letters. 5. _CQnsideririg relevcmt provision of Section 65 of the Indisin Ei'idence Act, I find that order passed by the Reyisionai Court as we.1! as by the Magistrate js in accordCTice wjth !aw and there is no infirmity in the same. Moreover, the revisiona! jSourt has aiready permitted counsel for the petitioners to show these jetters to the witnesses and to putforth the uesi+i, 6. In view of the above, the petition faiis ond is accordingly dismissed. i' Pritinker Diwaker Judge