The discretion to allow additional documents under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and with caution, and filing of additional documents is a concession to be used sparingly.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This is a petition seeking to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 04.08.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, PC Act, CBI -07, RADC, New Delhi in CC No. 01/2019 (new)/C.C. No. 26/02 (old) titled 'CBI vs. V.S. Jafa & Ors.'

2. In the present case, FIR was registered in the year 1997. Subsequently, the chargesheet was filed.

3. On 01.10.2014, the Special Judge allowed two applications of the CBI dated 18.09.2013 and 23.10.2013 for filing additional relevant documents. The said documents were filed by CBI.

4. On 08.03.2018, another application was filed by Mr. Rao for and on behalf of CBI for taking on record the original seizure memo/letters.

5. Thereafter, on 27.07.2018, the Special Judge has held "This case is now the oldest case pending in the court of undersigned. Numerous opportunities have already been given to the prosecution to procure the attendance of witnesses. Therefore, prosecution evidence is hereby directed to be closed."

6. On 31.03.2021, the parties were directed to file brief written arguments.

7. The petitioner herein i.e., accused No. 4 filed his written arguments on 13.04.2021 and in paras 17 to 27 categorically raised an argument that there is no document on record which shows the forgery committed by the petitioner.

8. It was stated in the written submissions that the prosecution has failed to examine any witness or place any document which proves the signatures of the petitioner.

9. After filing of the said written submissions, the application in question has been filed dated 19.07.2021 seeking permission to submit original file/documents with respect to accused No. 4.

10. In the impugned application paras 2, 3 and 4 read as under:

"2. That during the final argument, it was found that specimen handwritings/signatures from S-1 to S-37 of accused Sh. Kishan Lal Agarwal and witnesses Sh. Ratan Lal, Sh. Deben Mech & Sh. Madan Sharma, could not be mentioned in the List of Documents annexed with the Charge-Sheet inadvertently, which are relevant in the case as the same are lying with the Malkhana. CFSL, Delhi report qua the above handwriting/signatures has been admitted by the accused persons during trial.

3. That the names of the following independent witnesses in whose presence the aforesaid specimen handwritings/signatures were taken, are also not mentioned in the cited list of witnesses, inadvertently.

However, the examination of the aforesaid relevant witnesses as Prosecution Witness is necessary to prove the specimen handwritings/signatures of accused Kishan Lal Aggarwal and witnesses Ratan Lal, Sh. Deben Mech and Sh. Madan Sharma.

4. That the specimen handwriting/signatures of Sh. Ratan Lal and Sh. Madan Sharma were taken by Sh. R. A. Yadav IO. The specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Sh. Kishan Lal Agarwal was obtained by Sh. V. K. Sharma, Dy. Supdt. of Police, CBI (ACU-VI), New Delhi in the presence of independent witness Sh. Pramod Kumar Saxena. Since, both Sh. V. K. Sharma and witness Sh. Pramod Kumar Saxena are expired. Examination of Sh. R. A. Yadav, Addl. Supdt., IO of the instant case is required to prove the signatures of.Sh. V. K. Sharma, Dy. Supdt. of Police, part IO of the case."

11. In the impugned order, the learned Special Judge was pleased to allow the application of the applicant, CBI and permitted CBI to recall witnesses as well as produce additional documents.

12. The Special Court, while allowing the application observed as under:

"Though the investigation Agency should have been vigilant and should have filed all the original seizure memos/letters along with challan, keeping in mind that photo copies of these memos/search memos/seizure memos are