Smt Tripti Bassi V. Sri Satvinder Singh Bassi

CRL.RP/1113/2016

AI Insights

The case involves two criminal revision petitions filed by Smt Tripti Bassi against Sri Satvinder Singh Bassi, concerning evidentiary rulings in a trial court. The first petition challenged the trial court's refusal to allow the petitioner to mark xerox copies of documents as evidence, which were produced by the respondent. The second petition contested the trial court's decision rejecting the petitioner's request for the production of the respondent's income and expenditure statement. Both petitions were heard together and were rejected by the High Court of Karnataka, which upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 689853 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Section 397 Cr.P.C, Section 401 Cr.P.C, Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: D PRAJWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S
• Keywords: Criminal Revision Petition; Criminal Revision Petition; Income and expenditure statement; Document Marking; Evidence Act
• Section: 65B; 65A; 401; 397

Judgement Text

" - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JULY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1113/2016 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1112/2016 IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1113/2016 BETWEEN: Smt Tripti Bassi W/o Satvinder Singh Bassi Aged about 56 years R/at No.104, Phase II Prestige Langleigh ECC Road, White Field Bengaluru-560 066. …PETITIONER (By Sri S Balakrishnan, Adv.) AND: Sri Satvinder Singh Bassi S/o L.S. Bassi Aged about 50 years C/o Mr. Savio Thomos No.4, Green Courts Apartments Srinidhi Layout Vidyaranyapura Bengaluru-560 076. - 2 - Also At B-501, Golden Blossom Apartments Kadugodi, Bengaluru. Also At No.42, Nalanda Apartments Block-D, Vikaspuri Newdelhi-110 017. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri D Prajwal, Adv. for Sri V Ganga Bai, Adv.) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the MMTC- V, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.221/2015 refusing to mark three documents produced by respondent himself and permit the petitioner to mark said documents, further set aside the judgment dated 18.07.2016 passed by the LXIV Addl. City Civil and S.J., Bengaluru City in Crl.A.No.801/2016 confirming the order of Trial Court. IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1112/2016 BETWEEN: Smt Tripti Bassi W/o Satvinder Singh Bassi Aged about 56 years R/at No.104, Phase II Prestige Langleigh ECC Road, White Field Bengaluru-560 066. …PETITIONER (By Sri S Balakrishnan, Adv.) - 3 - AND: Sri Satvinder Singh Bassi S/o L.S. Bassi Aged about 50 years C/o Mr. Savio Thomos No.4, Green Courts Apartments Srinidhi Layout Vidyaranyapura Bengaluru-560 076. Also At B-501, Golden Blossom Apartments Kadugodi, Bengaluru. Also At No.42, Nalanda Apartments Block-D, Vikaspuri Newdelhi-110 017. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri D Prajwal, Adv. for Sri V Ganga Bai, Adv.) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 21.04.2016 passed by the MMTC- V, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.221/2015 rejecting the prayer of direction to the respondent for produce income and expenditure statement, further set aside the judgment dated 18.07.2016 passed by the LXIV Addl. City Civil and S.J., Bengaluru City in Crl.A.No.771/2016 confirming the order of Trial Court. These Criminal Revision Petitions coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following: - 4 - O R D E R The petitioner before the Trial Court is challenging two orders passed by the said Court in these two separate petitions. 2. In Crl.R.P.No.1113/2016 the order impugned is refusal of the trial Court to permit the petitioner to mark the xerox copy of the documents which are part of the record produced by the respondent. 3. Perused the order of the trial Court, so also, the appellate Court. Since the documents sought to be confronted to the witnesses and marked in evidence are xerox copies, the trial Court rejected to mark the same and in appeal, the learned Sessions Judge has dealt in detail about the provisions of Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act and upheld the order of the trial Court. The order is proper and does not call for interference. - 5 - That apart, those documents having been produced by the respondent, the petitioner not be allowed to make use of the same. Hence, Crl.Rp.No.1113/2016 is liable to be rejected. 4. The order sought to be impugned in Crl.R.P.No.1112/2016 is, during the course of evidence, the respondent had admitted that he had filed income and expenditure statement to the Income Tax Authorities: The petitioner filed an application seeking the production of copy of the said statement. 5. The application was contested. The respondent in his objection statement had contended that he is neither a business man nor a professionalist to maintain the income and expenditure statement of account. Rightly, the Courts below have rejected the prayer observing that it is for the respondent to rebut the contention of the petitioner about his income. - 6 - 6. It is quite common that suggestions put to a witness in the witness box by opposite party may be either admitted or denied. A stray admission divorced form his/her entire oral evidence can not be encashed by the opposite party. When there is a pleading by the respondent disputing a document Court can not direct him to produce a nonexistent document. Even otherwise, it is open to the petitioner to seek the Trial Court to draw adverse inference against the respondent for taking inconsistent stand. Accordingly both petitions are rejected. Sd/- JUDGE bkp "