The court has the discretion to allow the production of documents during the course of evidence under Section 242 of the Cr.P.C., and such allowance does not cause prejudice to the accused.

JUDGMENT

Kishore C. Sant, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent of the parties taken up for final hearing.

2. The present petition is filed by the original accused persons challenging an order passed under Section 242 sub section (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the learned C.J.M., Latur dated 02.07.2022. By way of impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has allowed the application filed by the prosecution seeking permission to produce on record the documents as per the list during the course of evidence.

3. The facts are that the informant is the owner of land Gat No. 57 admeasuring 80 R from village Borwati, Taluka and District Latur. She became owner of the land by purchasing the land in the year 1985. It is the allegation that the accused persons by forging the documents and by forging the signature of the informant created certain documents and on the basis of those documents have filed suit against her. On receiving a summons in the suit the respondent No. 2/original complainant tried to lodge FIR against the present petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 469, 471, 465, 417, 191, 209 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said complaint was however, not taken by the police. The respondent No. 2 therefore filed an application seeking direction to the police to investigate into an offence under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.

4. In the application it is stated that the informant was served with the summons in R.C.S. No. 196/2009 issued by the Civil Judge Senior Division. It was found that the suit was filed for specific performance. In the said suit it was found that a bogus agreement to sale is produced on which the signature of the informant is forged. The accused Nos. 2 to 4 have signed as witnesses to the document. On going through the application the learned J.M.F.C. issued direction to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. and on the basis of which FIR came to be lodged and investigation started. After investigation, a charge-sheet also came to be filed. The trial later on came to be transferred to the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Latur.

5. During the course of trial at the stage of evidence, the prosecution filed an application below Exhibit 120 seeking permission from the Court to produce on record some important documents which were necessary for the purpose of trial. The documents are (i) opinion obtained from the handwriting expert, Vakalatnama and Copy of the civil suit, (ii) registered sale deed executed by the owner of the land in favour of the informant dated 08.03.1985 and (iii) copy of application sent by the informant to the police along with R.P.A.D. receipt. The application of the prosecution was opposed by the accused persons/present petitioners stating that till filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charges these documents were not produced by the prosecution. There is no provision in Cr.P.C. to produce the additional documents through witness at the time of recording of the evidence. The documents may be manipulated or tampered.

6. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties was pleased to allow the application with the aid of section 242 of the Cr.P.C. It is observed that, the exercise of power under Section 242 of the Cr.P.C. is not regulated and controlled by the provisions of Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. It is further observed that, the Magistrate is empowered to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. While deciding the application, the learned Trial Judge has considered various judgments delivered by High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. It is the submission of learned advocate for the petitioners that the Court does not have power to directly allow production of the documents during the course of evidence of witness. If at all, it was required to be produced in evidence, then it could have been produced only by invoking power under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C.