1 2025:CGHC:38395 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2247 of 2025 Sanjay Kumar Sharma S/o Nandar Kumar Sharma Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Ringani, Ps Bhilai-3, Dist. Durg (C.G) Current Address New Changorabhata, Mahadev Nagar, Near Pragya School, Street No.3, Raipur (C.G.). ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate, Dist. Raipur (C.G) ... Respondent For the petitioner : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Deputy Government Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 04/08/2025 1. In this petition filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G) in Criminal Revision No.199/2024 and further to omit the document exhibited as Ex.P-10 from the record of Criminal Case No. 2146/2018 pending before the JMFC, Raipur (C.G). A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.08.12 16:13:09 +0530 2 2. During the course of trial proceedings of Criminal Case No.2146 of 2018 pending before the learned JMFC, Raipur on 23.04.2024, the examination-in-chief of witness namely L.K. Jahire took place wherein a photocopied document pertaining to the petitioner’s appointment to the Post of Lecturer (Hindi) on production was marked as Annexures A-15 to A-22. At the time of marking of Annexures on documents , the defence counsel immediately filed objection in writing dated 23.04.2024 stating that the seized document being a photocopy, ought not be so exhibited in absence of production of original document submitted by the petitioner or without complying with the provisions of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned trial Court rejected the objection on the same day itself i.e., 23.04.2024 stating that the documents in the seizure memo (Ex.P-10) dated 21.12.2017 were submitted by the witness to the police and he was competent to mark those documents. The trial court further held that the seizure memo is a document recorded in presence of the said witness and so the documents seized through it are part of the charge sheet and those documents have to be marked in its complete form and annexed during the stage of evidence based on a deposition of a witness concerned and rejected the objection raised by the petitioner. 3. Against the order of trial Court dated 23.04.2024, revision was filed which has been rejected by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur vide order dated 05.09.2024. The revisional Court observed that original record shows that the photocopied documents seized as per Ex.P- 10 in the seizure memo have been marked by the learned trial court vide Articles A-15 to A-22. The revisional court reiterated the well-established principle of evidence that merely marking a document as an exhibit does not necessarily determine its admissibility. The admissibility, inadmis- sibility and evidentiary value of the documents presented in the case have to be considered only at the stage of final adjudication. On the basis of above analysis, the revisional court held that the objection raised by the defence on marking the photocopied documents seized in the seizure memo as articles is shown to be baseless and unjustified. Against the order of revisional court dated 05.09.2024, this petition has been filed seeking a direction to the trial Court to completely omit document Ex.P-10 from the record of criminal Case. 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below have failed to appreciate that photocopies of documents cannot be marked as exhibits in absence of the original copy of documents concerned, despite a written objection from the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel supports the orders passed by the learned trial Court as also the revisional Court and submits that photocopies of documents can be marked as annexures. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and the documents annexed to the petition. 7. It is clear from the perusal of the record that the trial court has marked the seizure memo from exhibit P-10 which is the actual seizure memo. The photocopies of the documents seized in that seizure memo have been marked on articles from Annexure A-15 to A-22. It is clear that the photocopies of the documents have been marked only for identification of article marks and they were not exhibited. Therefore, it cannot be said that the photocopies of documents have been accepted as secondary evidence. In such a situation, those articles marked over documents do not automatically become admissible. This situation has also been clarified by the revisional court in its order. 8. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the trial Court and the revisional Court warranting interference by this Court in the instant petition. Consequently, this petition is dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge R a o