APHC010670662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12837/2025 Between: SRI HANUMAN COTTON ENTERPRISES, REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR KATAKAMSETTY SANKAR S/O.VEERAIAH O/O.DR.NO.4-5-32/53/4, NEAR UTSAV GARDENS,1ST LINE, VIDYA NAGAR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATHI. LAKSHMI VINAYAKA TRADERS, 2. LAKSHMI VINAYAKA TRADERS RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT, REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR PULAGAM SIVA RAMI REDDY S/O.LATE SESHI REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 0/O.S.K.R.ESTATE,ETUKURU ROAD, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: HABIBULLA SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. P VIJAYA KIRAN 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12837 of 2025 Dated 12.02.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), seeking to quash the order dated 29.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.617 of 2025 in C.C. No.435 of 2018, whereunder the petitioner/Accused filed an application under Sections 243 and 247 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and Sections 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity ‘the Act’) seeking to receive three documents, namely: (1) copy of self-cheque drawn on Corporation Bank bearing No.001477, passed for Rs.10,00,000/-, bearing acknowledgment of the complainant; (2) copy of letter submitted by the accused to the Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, requesting closure of his account; and (3) letter issued by Union Bank, Guntur, stating that the term loan (Education Loan) of the son of the accused, K. Chaitanya, was settled and closed. The learned Trial Court dismissed the above-mentioned petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12837 of 2025 Dated 12.02.2026 3. On perusal of the record, there is no dispute that the banker of the petitioner was examined as R.W.1. In his chief-examination, he admitted that the above-mentioned three documents were submitted to the Bank and that they were later destroyed due to lapse of time. The learned Magistrate, however, observed that the petitioner/Accused had not produced any rules or norms to establish that the banker was entitled to destroy the documents after lapse of a certain period. 4. If the destruction of the above three documents had been in dispute, there would have been some justification on the part of the learned Trial Court to point out that rules or regulations were not produced to prove that the destruction was not in accordance with the rules. However, when the banker as R.W.1 himself admitted that the documents were destroyed, there was no necessity on the part of the learned Trial Court to point out that the petitioner failed to file any rules or regulations to establish that the banker was entitled to destroy the documents after lapse of time. Admitted facts need not be proved, and admissions are the best form of evidence, even as per Section 58 of ‘the Act’. 5. The learned Trial Court further pointed out that the petitioner had not produced the original documents or certified copies thereof as contemplated under Sections 63 and 65 of ‘the Act’. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the three original documents were submitted to the 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12837 of 2025 Dated 12.02.2026 banker and that he later obtained photocopies of those documents from the banker itself. 6. In that view of the matter, there was no occasion, rather no possibility, for the petitioner to obtain certified copies of those documents, inasmuch as there is no practice or procedure on the part of the banker to issue certified copies of such documents. Since the original three documents were admittedly submitted to the Bank, the learned Trial Court could not have expected the petitioner to produce the originals. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that the documents are in the custody of any Court; had that been so, the petitioner could have obtained certified copies thereof. Therefore, insisting upon production of certified copies of the said documents is unreasonable. 7. It is noteworthy to mention that the disputed cheque is of the year 2018. The petitioner states that the self-cheque drawn on Corporation Bank bearing No.001477, passed for Rs.10,00,000/- bearing acknowledgment of the complainant, is of the year 2014. The copy of the letter submitted by the petitioner to the Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, requesting closure of his account, is of the year 2015. The letter issued by Union Bank, Guntur, stating that the term loan (Education Loan) of the son of the accused, K. Chaitanya, was settled and closed, is of the year 2022. 8. At any rate, if one more fair opportunity was given by the learned Magistrate to the petitioner to receive photocopies of all the three 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12837 of 2025 Dated 12.02.2026 documents and proceed in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Sections 63 and 65 of ‘the Act’, no prejudice would have been caused either to the petitioner/Accused or to respondent No.2/complainant, inasmuch as respondent No.2 would be provided fair and sufficient opportunity to cross-examine either the petitioner or R.W.1, the banker, with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the documents mentioned in the impugned order. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the clear admission made by R.W.1, the banker, that the documents previously submitted by the petitioner were destroyed, the petitioner has laid at least the prima facie the necessary foundation as contemplated under Sections 63 and 65 of ‘the Act’ for receiving secondary evidence. The impugned order of the learned Magistrate is a perverse order, bereft of any valid and sound reasons. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 29.09.2025 and directing the learned Magistrate to receive the above-mentioned three documents subject to proof and relevancy and other legal requirements and proceed in accordance with law. Upon receiving the said documents, the learned Trial Court shall afford fair and sufficient opportunity to respondent No.2 to prove the genuineness or otherwise of the documents in cross-examination of either the petitioner or R.W.1, the banker. 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12837 of 2025 Dated 12.02.2026 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 12.02.2026 Note: Issue C.C.by 13.02.2026 B/o RSI 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12837 of 2025 Dated 12.02.2026 44 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12837 of 2025 Date: 12.02.2026 Note: Issue C.C.by 13.02.2026 B/o RSI 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12837 of 2025 Dated 12.02.2026 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MAIN CASE No: Crl.P.No.12837 of 2025 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 06. 12.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J The Criminal Petition is disposed of. (Vide separate order). _________ Dr.YLR,J RSI 9 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.12837 of 2025 Dated 12.02.2026