Arun Chandra Upadhyay, J.

1. By filing this revision application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.05.012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kamrup at Guwahati in C.R. Case No. 5535C/2008 by which the petition filed by the complainant opposite party under Section 294 Cr.P.C. 1973 was allowed. I have heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.R. Surana, learned counsel representing the respondent.

2. The facts leading to filing of this revision application, may be stated as follows:

The complainant-petitioner is a duly constituted Market Committee established by the Government of Assam, in exercise of power conferred under Section 7 of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972.

Complaint case bearing C.R. Case No. 5535C/2008 was filed by the petitioner Committee, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup at Guwahati, against the opposite party alleging inter-alia that the opposite party firm is dealing with specified Agricultural Produces, namely, wheat products without making payment of any cess, as required under Section 21 of the said Assam Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1972. The opposite party also engaged itself in the said illegal business, within the prescribed area, without obtaining valid license under Section 13(2) of the said Act. As alleged in the complaint, as on 9th October, 2008, around 400 packets of such wheat, belonging to the opposite party firm was seized, in presence of witnesses and hence they would be liable to pay penalty under Section 39(2) and 39(3) of the said Act Learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence and issued process for appearance of the accused/respondent. On appearance of the accused/respondent, teamed trial Court explained the particular of the offence under Section 39(2) and (3) of Assam Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1972. The said complaint case is presently pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup at Guwahati for disposal.

3. In the meantime, on the date fixed for recording evidence of the witnesses of the complainant, the accused/respondents filed an application invoking the provisions of Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, along with as many as 30 numbers of different documents, with a prayer for issuing direction to the complainant, petitioner committee to admit the said documents, before the evidence of the complainant was recorded. The petitions accordingly filed written objection to the application filed by the accused respondent under Section 294 Cr.P.C. The petitioner raised objection on the ground that the right of the accused to produce any document, would accrue to him only after un-accused enters the defence and after recording of the evidence by the complainant/prosecution.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the accused person resorting to the procedure laid down under Section 294 Cr.P.C., by producing documents in his defence even before completion of the recording of the evidence of the complainant witnesses is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint may be asked to admit or deny the documents in defence submitted in terms of Section 294 of Cr PC only by the accused after closing of the evidence of complainant's witnesses.

5. Mr. Kataki, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the decision of Apex Court reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568 State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, submitted that the right of the accused in filing the documents during the course of the Trial would accrue only after the accused entered the defence and not prior to that. In the instant case, without examination of the complainant witnesses, the accused person sought to introduce some documents by resorting to the procedure laid down under Section 294 Cr.P.C.

6. In the State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (supra), the Apex Court observed that insofar as the accused is conc