The HC also pointed out that the case was at a crucial stage, and the reason given for filing the petition to include the two letters was simply an attempt to fill the gaps in the case, which was not permissible. (File pic/Getty)
The court set aside an earlier order by a metropolitan magistrate allowing the prosecution to submit such a letter in an ongoing criminal case involving allegations of cheating and fraud of Rs 1.85 crore
The Madras High Court recently set aside a trial court’s order allowing additional documents to be admitted in a 2013 cheating case, involving a Rs 1.85 crore loan and allegations of false promises.
The case involved the petitioner/accused, who allegedly cheated the de facto complainant, M Pandi, by promising to make him a partner in Vanishita Ispat Udyog (P) Ltd in exchange for a Rs. 1.85 crore loan. The petitioners were subscribers to Pandi’s indigenous chit fund and had approached him for financial assistance.
The prosecution sought to admit two additional documents: a handwritten letter from the second accused, Ramakanth, to the Inspector of Police, New Washermenpet Police Station, and a letter from the Tamil Nadu Steel Scrap Processor’s Association. The trial court allowed the prosecution’s plea.
However, in a criminal revision petition against the trial court’s order, the defence argued that these documents were inadmissible, citing Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The bench of Justice M Nirmal Kumar ruled in favour of the petitioner, stating that the letter from Ramakanth was inadmissible as it was obtained after the registration of the case and was thus hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Additionally, the court noted that the Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Steel Scrap Processor’s Association had not been examined as a witness, rendering the second letter irrelevant.
The HC also pointed out that the case was at a crucial stage, and the reason given for filing the petition to include the two letters was simply an attempt to fill the gaps in the case, which was not permissible.
Therefore, the court allowed the criminal revision petition and set aside the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, in Chennai.
