HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1210 & 1729 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Since parties to the proceedings and the point to be decided in both the revisions are one and same, both the revisions are being disposed of together by this common order. The brief facts of the case are that basing on the report of de facto complainant namely Vasireddy Jayasree, the Sub Inspector of Police, Chebrolu P.S. registered Crime No.88 of 2007 against 13 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 & 34 of IPC, 201, 120-B, 109, 506 of IPC read with Sections 3 & 5 of the E.S. Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police, Tenali Rural Circle, laid charge sheet against the accused for the said offences before the VI Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Guntur, and the learned Sessions Judge numbered the same as S.C.No.62 of 2009 and made over the case to IX Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, for disposal in accordance with law. During the course of examination of the de facto complainant as P.W.1, the Addl. Public Prosecutor tried to mark the report given by her to police as exhibit, but the counsel for the accused opposed the same on the ground that the same is hit by the provisions of Section 162 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, at that stage, the learned Sessions Judge stopped recording the evidence of P.W.1 and, on hearing both sides with regard to admissibility of the report given by her, in evidence, passed an order dated 09.06.2010, directing the prosecution to proceed with the matter including examination of P.W.1, without marking the report given by her and also giving liberty to take steps to mark the said report after completion of the entire evidence, subject to nature of evidence available on record by that time and subject to the provisions of law. Being aggrieved by the same, the State preferred Crl.R.C.No.1210 of 2010, while P.W.1 preferred Crl.R.C.No.1729 of 2010. Heard both sides and perused the entire record. This Court is of the view that when an objection is raised by any of the parties, the trial Court should record the objection and mark the documents. Mere marking of the documents itself is not evidence, as per the well-settled proposition of law. After marking of the documents, the trial Court is at liberty to decide, whether the documents are admissible in evidence at the time of passing judgment placing reliance on the entire evidence concerned. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned herein. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed and the order dated 09.06.2010 made in S.C.No.62 of 2009 on the file of the IX Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, is hereby set aside. The learned trial Judge is hereby directed to mark the report given by P.W.1 and record the objections raised by the defence counsel and, thereafter, he is at liberty to decide, whether the same is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and whether it is admissible in evidence, at the time of passing judgment in the sessions case. _____________ RAJA ELANGO, J 3rd November, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Criminal Revision Case Nos1210 & 1729 of 2010 (Allowed) 3rd November, 2011 cbs