Certified copies of unmarked documents can be provided.

Telangana High Court

Judgment No.1

Logeti Pedda Bhojanna vs Mahajah Ravinder, on 28 November, 2024

           THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA

        CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3686 OF 2024

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant seeking to direct the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (PCR) Court-Cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Adilabad and the Superintendent of copying and establishment section to furnish the copies as mentioned in C.A.No.3518 of 2024 in O.S.No.66 of 2024. By the impugned docket order dated 30.09.2024, the C.A.No.3518 filed for furnishing the certified copies of documents 1 to 4 numbers, was returned.

2. Heard Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though notice was served, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant submitted that the trial Court ought to have furnished the documents as sought in C.A.No.3518 of 2024 considering the guide for Ministerial Officers of District Court working under the control of Telangana State High Court, more particularly provision of Rule 15.7 under Rules and Regulations in respect of copyist establishment. He further SKS,J submitted that prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner if the said copies are not furnished as the revision petitioner has to file the copies of the said documents in several other suits filed against him by some other persons. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the revision petition.

4. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, this Court has perused the record. It is apparent that the revision petitioner has only one certified copy of the said documents and filed the same before the trial Court. Pertinently, as per the guide for Ministerial Officers of District Court working under the control of Telangana State High Court, more particularly the Rules and Regulations in respect of copying establishment Rule 15.7 clearly states about unmarked document as if the document of which copy is given is an unmarked document, permission shall be obtained from the Court concerned to give copy. It shall be noted on the photocopy given as "UNMARKED DOCUMENT". Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that ends of justice would meet if a direction is given to the trial Court to furnish the copies as mentioned in C.A.No.3518 of 2024 in O.S.No.66 of 2024.

SKS,J

5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Trial Court is directed to furnish the copies as sought by the petitioner in C.A.No.3518 of 2024 in O.S.No.66 of 2024. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE SMT.K.SUJANA Date: 28.11.2024 

Judgment No.2

Kashi Sridhar vs The State Of Telangana on 12 March, 2025 

 THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

 CRIMINAL PETITION No.15320 OF 2024

 O R D E R: 

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') by petitioner/accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in S.C.No.292 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Siddipet. 

2. Heard Ms. Padmaja Gadiraju, learned counsel representing Mr. K.Raghavacharyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the material on record.

 3. Crl.M.P.No.63 of 2023 is filed in Crime No.130 of 2022 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C, seeking the following prayer: "Therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court to direct respondent No.1 to provide call data records along with tower location, latitude and longitude details of service provider JIO of the deceased Mobile No.7671089102 from marriage to death and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the JAK, J CRLP_15320_2024 circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

 4. On 20.03.2023, by Dis.No.570 of 2023, Principal District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet, issued the following proceedings: "Adverting to the subject cited, petitioner/A1 namely Kashi Sridhar S/o Srinivas Rao, R/o Secunderabad filed a petition to call for the Data of the Mobile bearing No.7671089102 pertaining the deceased Thummari Susmitha in S.C.No.292 of 2022 in Crl.M.P.No.63 of 2022 of PS Siddipet I town for the period from 27.11.2021 to April, 2022. Therefore you are hereby directed to submit the call data along with Tower Location, Latitude and Longitude details of service provider JIO of the Mobile bearing No.7671089102 pertaining to the deceased Thummari Susmitha in S.C.No.292 of 2022 in Crl.M.P.No.63 of 2022 of PS Siddipet I town for the period from 27.11.2021 to April, 2022 on or before 21.04.2023." 

5. An application was filed in the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet, on 12.06.2023, seeking certified copy of JIO Call Data vide CA No.1912/2023. The data was called from JIO Mobile Company vide proceedings dated 20.03.2023 in Dis.No.570 of 2023. On 19.06.2023, the said application was returned with an endorsement. JAK, J CRLP_15320_2024 Kashi Sridhar vs The State Of Telangana on 12 March, 2025 

6. For a fair trial, petitioner/accused No.1 is entitled to receive the copies of unmarked documents by way of an application (i.e., application for certified copy under Rule 128 of Civil Rules of Practice). Copy application is filed on 12.06.2023 seeking certified copy of JIO Call Data called from JIO Mobile Company and the same was returned on 19.06.2023 with an endorsement ""the said documents are unmarked documents, hence, copy application liable to be return." Criminal Petition is filed on 11.12.2024, there is a delay of approximately 500 days in preferring the present petition. But, no proper explanation is offered. 

7. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in V.K. Sasikala v. State represented by Superintendent of Police 1 and contended that the petitioner/accused No.1 is entitled for the documents. Denial of access to documents, which are in the custody of Court, may cause prejudice to accused and thus result in denial of fair trial. (2012) 9 SCC 771 JAK, J CRLP_15320_2024 

8. Be that as it may, on considering the entire factual matrix of the case and the law laid down in V.K. Sasikala (supra) and in the interest of justice and to ensure a fair trial, this Court is inclined to condone the delay by imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- on petitioner/accused No.1. Petitioner/accused No.1 shall present an application under Rule 128 of Civil Rules of Practice for receiving certified copies of unmarked documents in the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge at Siddipet. The said application shall be received and proceeded only after the payment of an amount of Rs.5,000/- by petitioner herein to the complainant by way of Demand Draft or Bankers Cheque and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- to District Legal Services Authority, Siddipet, and obtain receipts. It is only after the said receipts are annexed along with the copy application for certified copies, such application shall be proceeded with and the certified copies of unmarked documents, as sought for, shall be provided. The said amount shall be paid by petitioner/accused No.1 within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. JAK, J CRLP_15320_2024 

9. With the above observations, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J

 Date: 12.03.2025