Section 294 Cr.P.C. is not attracted at the pre-charge stage in a Sessions trial, as the stage for consideration of charge is not part of a trial or other proceeding covered by the said Section.

This revisional application under s. 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order dated 15.7.91 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Birbhum, in Sessions case No. 85 of 1989 arising under s. 498A, 306/304 of the Indian Penal Code. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the application of the accused persons filed on 6th June, 1990 before him praying leave of the Court to file some documents, namely letters exchanged between the family of the accused petitioners and the family of the parents of the deceased as per Annexure to the petition. In the said application the accused/petitioners prayed that the learned Judge should ask the prosecution to admit or deny genuineness of those letters as per provision under s. 294 Cr.P.C. It was urged before him on behalf of the accused/petitioners that s. 294 Cr.P.C. was applicable at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding and if the genuineness of the letters was not disputed, to consider the said letters along with the materials and documents as may be produced by the prosecution at the time of consideration of framing of charge.

2. The learned Sessions Judge by his impugned order considered the submissions of both sides and came to the conclusion that s. 294 of the Cr.P.C. is not attracted at the time of considering the question of framing of charge and accordingly rejected the petition.

3. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the accused/petitioners have come up before this Court challenging the order of the learned Sessions Judge.

4. For facility of understanding s. 294 of the Cr.P.C. is quoted below :

"294. No formal proof of certain documents–.(1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.

(2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.

(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed :

5. Provided that the Court may in its discretion, require such signature to be proved."

6. Mr. Sekhar Bose, learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that the legislature in its wisdom has incorporated s. 294 Cr.P.C. to avoid unnecessary prolongation of a trial or litigation by providing that at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceedings, if either side files some documents, it is the duty of the Court to call upon the other side to admit or deny genuineness of such documents and if the genuineness is not disputed, the documents are to be accepted and read as evidence in due course. Mr. Bose urged that such introduction of documents may be allowed at the pre-charge stage in a Sessions trial as in his view the stage for consideration of charge if not taken as part of a trial, may very well be taken as being covered under the expressions 'inquiry' or 'other proceedings' as provided in the said Section. Mr. Bose submitted that at the time of considering the question of framing of charge, the Sessions Judge is to consider the record of the case and documents submitted therewith and if at this stage the accused wants to produce some documents lying in his custody, which may have some bearing on the question of framing of charge, there is no reason why he should not be allowed to avail of this opportunity. In his view, unless s. 294 Cr.P.C. is allowed to be invoked, how else the documents intended to be considered by the Sessions Judge at the time of consideration of charge could be introduced with due evidence credibility about them.

7. I have given an anxious consideration to Mr. Bose's submissions but with respect to him, I mu