Point of Law: Object of Section 294 Cr.P.C. is very clear i.e. to shorten the prosecution evidence and to ensure that certain documents when admitted by the accused need not be proved by the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent No. 2.

2. This petition, under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the order dated 12.06.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Tinsukia, in Complaint Case No. 39/2016, and also against the Judgment and order dated 01.12.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 40(2)/2017. It is to be mentioned here that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tinsukia, vide impugned order, dated 12.06.2017, has allowed the petition No. 3036/2016 filed under section 294 of the Code of Criminal procedure, and directed the petitioners to admit or deny genuineness of certain documents, in C.R. Case No. 39/2016, and vide impugned judgment and order in Criminal Revision Petition No. 40(2)/2017 the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia has upheld the said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Tinsukia.

3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under:

“The respondent No. 1-Shri Gunin Buragohain, as plaintiff had instituted a Title Suit, No. 58/2014, against the petitioner No. 1 and 2 as defendants, in the court of learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia for a decree of declaration of right title and interest over a plot of land measuring 03 bighas, covered by Dag No. 204(Part) of P.P. No. 84 situated at Morankari Gaon, Mouza- Gharbandi, Tinsukia and the said suit is pending at the stage of evidence. In the said suit, petitioner No. 1 and 2 had filed written statement on 31.03.2014, denying the averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint, and also filed counter claim over the suit land by right of adverse possession, having been possessed the same for 35 years. They also enclosed one legal notice dated 15.03.1985, purportedly issued by Advocate K. Agarwal of Tinsukia, addressed to the petitioner No. 3, who is not a party to the said Title Suit. In the said legal notice, dated 15.03.1985, it is stated that the petitioner No. 3 has been occupying about 3 bighas of land by cultivating the same, out of 6B-1K-6Ls, covered by dag No. 203 and 204 of P.P. No. 84, situated at Morankari Gaon, belonging to Smt. Budhiya Sonar and Shri Munna Sonar. Thereafter the respondent had filed one C.R. Case No. 39/2016, dated 27.10.2016, against the petitioners alleging that a manipulated legal notice dated 15.03.1985, allegedly issued by Advocate K. Agarwal was annexed with their written statement in Title Suit No. 58/2014, claiming their right of adverse possession, over the suit land and one seven digit phone number, i.e. 2338618, of Advocate K. Agarwal appeared there but, seven digit phone number in Tinsukia District started from October, 2002. Upon the said complaint the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class took cognizance under section 120(B)/420/468/471/34 IPC and issued process to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners entered appearance and contested the case. Thereafter, on 27.10.2016, at the time of evidence before the charge, the respondent had filed one petition No. 3036/16, under section 294 of Cr.P.C. for passing an order calling upon the petitioners to admit or deny the genuineness of certain documents. The petitioners had filed written objection against the petition. Thereafter, hearing learned Advocates of both sides; the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, had allowed the petition. Being highly aggrieved by the said order of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, the petitioners have filed one Criminal Revision Petition No. 40(2)/2017, before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, but, the same came to be dismissed on the ground that section 294 is a statutory provision and the parties have no right to object and that the impugned order is an interlocutory order as right of t