( 1 ) THIS petition under section 482 of Cr. PC seeks quashing of the order dated 21-6-1999 of the learned i Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, hyderabad passed in Crl. RP No. 16 of 1999 preferred against the order of the xxii Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad dated 5-10-1998 in MP No. 350 of 1998 in cc No. 82 of 1998 under which the learned Magistrate has received certain documents said to have been filed on behalf of the complainant.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts in nutshell are as follows: the respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act. While the trial was in progress and on the date the case was posted for further examination in chief of the complainant, this petition for receiving the document was filed. The documents in question are said to be the certificate of incorporation of the complainant company and a certified copy of the resolution passed by the Directors to authorise the complainant to represent before the Court. This petition was opposed stating that the petition was filed at belated stage and that the application was not accompanied by an affidavit and no reasons for the delay in filing the document has been shown and that the document in question was not referred in the complaint nor was it mentioned by PW1 during his examination.

( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate allowed this petition. Firstly, he pointed out that the case was posted for further examination of the complainant as PW1 inasmuch as examination in chief was deferred on the previous date of hearing. As to the objection that no affidavit was filed in support of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate observed that it may be an irregularity and does not vitiate the proceedings. A further contention appears to have been raised before the learned Magistrate that the documents in question do not pertain to the case and as such they are liable to be rejected. The learned Magistrate observed that it is a question of fact which has to be decided in the trial not in the petition. In regard to the delay in filing the documents, the learned Magistrate rejected the contention stating that the doucments can be received at any stage and that it will not cause any prejudice inasmuch as the accused will have ample opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses with reference to those documents.

( 4 ) WITH regard to the objection that these documents are not mentioned in the complaint, the learned Magistrate observed that the complainant has already filed the authorisation letter for filing the complaint and as to the certificate of incorporation, the learned Magistrate observed and held that mere non-mention of it does not preclude the complainant from filing it during the trial.

( 5 ) THIS order was challenged in revision before the learned Sessions Judge who dismissed the revision.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the learned Magistrate and that of the learned sessions Judge approving it suffer from illegality and have to be quashed.

( 7 ) THE first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order of the learned Magistrate discloses that the question whether the document is relevant and necessary for the disposal of the case was not decided and the learned magistrate observed that this can be decided during the trial.

( 8 ) IT is true that while considering the question of receiving certain documents at a belated stage, the principal question for consideration would be whether those documents are relevant and or necessary for just decision of the case. The observation of the Magistrate referred to above cannot be held justified but this in itself cannot be a reason for quashing the order of the learned Magistrate, if on examination, it is apparent that the document in question has. significant bearing on the matter required to be decided by the learned Magistrate during the trial. One of the doucments is said to b