IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3566 OF 2010 Date: 29.04.2010 Between: Bommedi Adinarayana ..... Petitioner AND Vadrevu Venkateswarlu and respondents ....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3566 OF 2010 ORDER: Grievance of the petitioner/defacto-complainant is that the VII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kakinada is proceeding with trial of Sessions Case No.194 of 2007 without there being original documents like F.I.R, final report, Inquest report, postmortem certificate and other connected documents. A report was called for from the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada on this aspect. The VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada sent a report dated 25.04.2010 which shows that both the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada as well as the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kakinada have been taking steps to get records from the Mandal Revenue Officer with whom the original record is lying because the case was originally registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Since the year 1997, the case has been pending in the lower Court. The report also discloses that in spite of fixing schedules previously, those schedules were cancelled. If one reads in between lines, it is evident that the petitioner, as PW.1, in the lower Court pretended and fell into witness box, while being examined in the lower Court, with a view to secure adjournment of the case. The Additional Public Prosecutor also filed Crl.M.P. Nos.87 and 88 of 2010 in the lower Court on 22.03.2010 to summon the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, Kakinada Urban and also the then Sub Inspector of Police, I-Town (L & O) Kakinada for production of records and material objects. The said petitions are pending in the lower Court. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that if original documents are not traced in the M.R.O’s office, then photostat copies thereof may be directed to be marked by the lower Court during trial as secondary evidence. In the circumstances, the lower Court after passing necessary orders in Crl.M.P Nos.87 and 88 of 2010 and in case, records are not traced, it is open to the lower Court to mark photostat copies of F.I.R etc., noted above as secondary evidence, subject to proper proof. The lower Court is further directed to expedite disposal of the Sessions Case of the year 1997, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months. The Criminal Petition is disposed of accordingly. ___________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 29th April 2010 Ivd