Point of Law : Power of Magistrate to issue summons to any witness on application of prosecution - There is no provision available for a witness to directly seek production of additional documents during course of sessions trial and at time of recording of his / her evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for rival parties.

2. The question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is, as to whether a witness appearing for the prosecution in a sessions trial can produce documents which were not part of the charge-sheet filed before the Court and whether such procedure for production of documents directly by the prosecution witness is contemplated under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

3. The petitioner is one of the accused persons in the trial pending before the Sessions Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge-11 at Nagpur. The offences alleged against the petitioner and accused persons are under Sections 420, 406, 409, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, as also Sections 45(1)(a) and 45(s) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1949, Section 24(1) and Section 27 of the Securities & Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and subsequently added offence under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that as a consequence of the said alleged offences committed by the petitioner and other accused persons, a large number of investors were defrauded. The Investigating Officer had seized various documents relating to the alleged offences and multiple bulky charge-sheets running into thousands of pages were filed before the Sessions Court.

5. During the course of the trial, a witness, Dr. Ashok Gajanan Lanjewar, was sought to be examined by the prosecution. The said witness moved an application bearing Exh. No.1106, before the Sessions Court seeking permission to produce additional documents. It was simply stated in the application that the said witness had misplaced the documents and since they were now found, he was seeking to place them before the Sessions Court. The said application was opposed by the petitioner and other accused persons, contending that such an application was not maintainable under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner placed much emphasis before the Sessions Court on the scheme of the Cr.P.C. and the role of Public Prosecutor, while contending that the attempt on the part of the witness to produce documents directly in such a manner was unknown to the procedure contemplated under the Cr.P.C. It was submitted that grave prejudice was caused to the accused persons, including the petitioner and that additional documents, if any, could be produced only upon further investigation being undertaken under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer.

6. By the impugned order dated 11/12/2020, the Sessions Court allowed the aforesaid application at Exh.1106. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and other accused persons were rejected. Reference was made to Sections 242 and 294 of the Cr.P.C., as also certain judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court.

7. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition, wherein notice was issued on 22/12/2020. The learned APP appeared on behalf of the respondent – State. An application for intervention was filed on behalf of the aforesaid witness i.e. Dr. Ashok Gajanan Lanjewar. But, when this Petition was taken up for hearing on 05/07/2021, none appeared on behalf of the applicant seeking intervention.

8. Mr. D.V. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the objections that were raised before the Sessions Court regarding the very maintainability of the application filed on behalf of the said witness, seeking permission to file additional documents on record. The learned counsel placed emphasis on the scheme of the Cr.P.C., referring to various provisions thereof, to emphasize upon the role of the Investigating Officer and that of the Public Prosecutor in a sessions trial. It was submitted that the application filed on behalf of the witness could not b