Whether the documents which are not the part of the charge-sheet could be received in evidence for prosecution after the commencement of trial? is the question that falls for determination in this case.

2. The facts giving rise to the above question is that a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners herein alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 408 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. In the course of the trial, the prosecution filed an application under section 242(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking to produce 17 documents enumerated in the list. In the application, it was stated that at the time of submission of the charge-sheet, the original documents listed in the application were produced before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and in the Court of Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Kodagu and therefore, the Xerox copies thereof were produced along with the charge-sheet. Since the Xerox copies are not admissible in evidence, the complainant obtained the above documents from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and from the Court of Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Kodagu and the same were sought to be produced before the Court.

3. Petitioners herein raised serious objection to receive the above documents on record contending that the Investigating Agency ought to have seized the original documents through proper mahazar and filed a supplementary report to its primary report in terms of section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. The mahazar dated 24.06.2010 produced along with the charge-sheet does not disclose the factum of seizure of the Xerox documents. Section 242(2) of Cr.P.C. does not permit the prosecution to file documents at a belated stage after the submission of the charge-sheet. Section 173(5) of Cr.P.C. ordains that all the relevant documents should be produced along with the charge-sheet. Therefore, it is not open for the prosecution to produce the proposed documents during the trial. It is contended that the proper course available for the prosecution was to obtain the necessary permission from the court to conduct further investigation as per section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and the documents so collected during further investigation could only be produced before the court along with a supplementary report. It is further contended that if the prosecution is allowed to produce additional documents at a belated stage, it is likely to prejudice the accused in their defence and thus the petitioners/accused sought for rejection of the application.

4. Before the trial court, both the parties placed reliance on certain authorities in support of their contentions. Considering the position of law laid down in the said decisions, the trial court was of the opinion that no party to the trial can be denied an opportunity to produce relevant materials which were not brought on record due to inadvertence and further holding that no prejudice would be caused to the defence as adequate opportunity would be available to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses and to lead rebuttal evidence, by the impugned order dated 11.04.2017, allowed the above application and permitted the prosecution to produce the proposed documents and to mark the same in evidence through PW.1.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the contentions urged before the Court below and placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in AMRUTBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL vs. SUMANBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS in (2017)4 SCC 177, would submit that once the final report is submitted before the court as per section 173(5) of the Code, the only course open for the prosecution to introduce additional material by way of additional documents is to obtain permission of the learned Magistrate for further investigation and thereafter collect further evidence either oral or documentary, and forward the same to the learned Magistrate by way of supplementary charge-sheet. That having n