The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which regulates the procedure for filing and admitting documents as evidence in criminal proceedings.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

2. By this petition, the petitioner, who is an accused facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code, prays for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Satara, allowing the application vide Ex.27 of the prosecution for filing of one document, a chit, alleged to be under the hand writing of deceased Savita, during the course of evidence of prosecution witness P.W.1 Ramesh Shinde.

3. It so happened that on 22.9.2014, P.W.1 Ramesh Shinde was being examined as a prosecution witness by the prosecution, when at the close of his examination-in-chief, P.W.1 Ramesh Shinde deposed before the Court that on last Saturday, i.e. on or about 20.9.2014, he discovered one chit from the case of spectacles of deceased Savita and on reading its contents, he found that the contents furnished some proof in support of the prosecution case against the accused. Therefore, on the request of learned APP, the further examination-in-chief of the witness was deferred and the learned APP filed an application vide Ex.27 seeking permission of the Court to produce the chit before the Court. The application was strongly opposed by the accused on the ground that there was no provision under law which allows a witness to produce a document before the Court in this fashion and also on the ground that allowing of the application would cause prejudice to the defence of the accused.

4. Upon hearing the prosecution as well as learned counsel for the accused, learned Sessions Judge found that no prejudice would be caused to the accused as the document sought to be produced was at the time when examination-in-chief was not over and cross-examination was just to commence and that there was no provision under the law in not allowing such an application. The order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 17.10.2014 and it is this order which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. I have carefully gone through the impugned order as well as the relevant documents filed along with the paper-book, with the assistance of learned APP and learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no provision under law which allows the prosecution to file before the Court a document on record at the time of recording of evidence of prosecution. He submits that once the charge-sheet is filed and the prosecution case reaches the stage of recording of evidence, under Section 294 of Code of Criminal Procedure, a document cannot be filed by the prosecution before the Court. He places his reliance on the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ajay Dayaram Gopnarayan & anr. reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 2141, decided by the Division Bench of this Court.

7. According to learned APP, there is no provision in law which prohibits the prosecution from filing before the Court a document which would be supportive of its case against the accused and that Section 294, Cr.P.C., is only a procedural provision which regulates the manner in which a document can be filed before the Court and also the way it should be admitted in evidence and nothing more. She further submits that this procedure, as seen from the impugned order, has already been followed by the prosecution in this case and, therefore, according to her, there is no merit in the present writ petition.

8. So far as Section 294, Cr.P.C., is concerned, I must say that learned APP is right when she submits that Section 294 is a procedural provision which lays down that as to how and when a document can be admitted in evidence or can be required to be proved in accordance with law. It only says that where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of such document should be included in the list a