ORDER :

The petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in S.C. No.517/2022 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur. In the aforesaid case, he is accused of having committed the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, “the Act”). The challenge in this petition is mounted against the order dated 05.04.2023 in Crl. M.P.No. 629/2023, by which the application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor to produce and mark the photocopy of a document was allowed.

2. Before delving into the merit of the order impugned, short facts which led to the passing of the order are required to be stated:

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner was acting as the caretaker of the house owned by a certain Vincent. The allegation is that the 1st accused, for the purpose of sale, procured 27.530 kg of Ganja from Tamil Nadu, and the same was entrusted to the petitioner. The petitioner is alleged to have kept the contraband on the Veranda of the house. Based on source information, a search was conducted, and the contraband articles were allegedly seized.

3. Trial commenced, and during the fag end of examination of the detecting officer, who was being examined as PW1, an application was filed by the prosecution to produce a photocopy of the document prepared by the investigating officer at the time of conducting the search of the house. The said document disclosed that the detecting officer had informed the accused in writing that he had the right to insist on the presence of a Judicial Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer to witness the search. The petitioner answered in the affirmative, and his signature was collected. However, the said document was not produced along with the final report. The application was filed purportedly under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, stating that the original of the record is lost and requesting that the prosecution be permitted to place on evidence a true photocopy of the same.

4. The petitioner filed a detailed objection objecting to the course adopted by the prosecution. He contended that in none of the prosecution records or in the statement of the witnesses reference is made to any such document prepared under Section 50 of the Act. It was also contended that the document was introduced to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution case.

5. The Sessions Judge rejected the objection raised by the petitioner and allowed the prosecution to mark the document by holding that the genuineness of the document can be looked into at a subsequent stage.

6. Sri. Rajesh Chakyat, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that no reasons whatsoever have been stated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while proceeding to allow the application. All that is stated is that the genuineness of the document can be looked into at a subsequent stage, and only the admissibility of the document is required to be decided at the stage when the document was tendered in evidence. According to the learned counsel, the contention of the petitioner that the document is fabricated and brought into existence to set up false evidence as against the petitioner was not considered by the learned Sessions Judge.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor would rely on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S Pai and another [2002 (5) SCC 82], and it was argued that there is no prohibition in producing the documents at a subsequent stage. According to the learned counsel, even if some mistake is committed by the Investigating Officer in not producing the relevant documents at the time of submitting the report or the charge sheet, it would be open to the investigating officer to produce the same with the permission of the court. It is further submitted that if the contention of the petitioner is that the document is fabricated, it is open to the petitioner to raise his contentions before the trial court at the a