IMPORTANT POINTS
The Court has wide power under this provision to even recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the Court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law.

ORDER :

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') challenging Annexure-VI order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in the case C.C.No.5/2017 pending in the court below. The offence alleged against him is punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.

3. The prosecution case is as follows: On 01.06.2012, the petitioner made application for availing loan from the Calicut Cooperative Urban Bank. At that time, he concealed the fact that he had sold a portion of the property on 31.05.2012 which he had offered as security for the loan. He availed a loan of Rs.4,75,000/-from the bank on 19.06.2012, on the basis of the equitable mortgage created in respect of the property. The aforesaid property included the property which was already sold by him. Thus, he cheated the bank.

4. When the case was posted for final hearing, after closing the evidence of the prosecution and the defence, the prosecutor filed two applications in the court below. The application Crl.M.P.No.100/19 was filed under Section 311 of the Code to recall the Manager of the bank, who was examined as PW1. The other application, Crl.M.P.No.143/2019, was filed under Section 91 of the Code to direct PW1 to produce before the court the memorandum of equitable mortgage allegedly executed by the petitioner and submitted to the bank.

5. Inspite of vehement objection raised by the petitioner, learned Magistrate allowed both applications, as per Annexure-VI order. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court with this petition under Section 482 of the Code.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged Annexure-VI order mainly on three grounds: (1) The prosecution cannot be permitted to produce and prove a document which was not seized by the police during the investigation of the case. (2) The prosecution cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna in the evidence by adducing additional evidence. (3) At any rate, the application filed for recalling the witness should not have been allowed by the learned Magistrate when the case was posted for final hearing.

8. There is no merit in the contention that the prosecution cannot be permitted to produce, during the trial of the case, a document which was not seized by the police during the investigation of the case. Further investigation of a case, even after filing charge sheet or even after commencement of the trial of a case, is not prohibited. If that be so, it cannot be found that the prosecution has no right to produce a document, which was not seized by the police during the investigation conducted before filing the charge sheet.

9. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S.Pai : AIR 2002 SC 1644, the Supreme Court has held as follows:

“Normally the investigating officer is required to produce all the relevant documents at the time of submitting the charge sheet. At the same time, as there is no specific prohibition, it cannot be held that the additional documents cannot be produced subsequently. If some mistake is committed in not producing the relevant documents at the time of submitting the report of charge sheet, it is always open to the investigation officer to produce the same with the permission of the Court. ....... Normally, the documents gathered during the investigation upon which the prosecution wants to rely are required to be forwarded to the Magistrate but if there is some omission, it would not mean that the remaining documents cannot be produced subsequently. .... Further, the scheme of subsection (8) of Section 173 also makes it abundantly clear that even after the charge sheet is submitted, further investigation, if called for, is not precluded. If further investigation is not precluded then there is no question of not permitting the prosecution to produce additional documents which wer