Point of Law: Object of Section 294 of Code is to accelerate pace of trial by avoiding time being wasted by parties in recording unnecessary evidence.

ORDER :

The petitioner is the first accused in CC No. 1806/2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kalamassery. She is facing prosecution for having committed offences punishable under Sections 408, 418, 427, 464, 477A, and 120B, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The above case arose from a complaint filed by M/s. Sai Service Pvt. Ltd. before the learned Magistrate, which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code” for brevity). After completing the investigation, the final report was filed.

3. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, while working as an employee in “Maruti True Value,” a subsidiary unit under Sai Service Pvt. Ltd., of which the de facto complainant was the General Manager, entered into a criminal conspiracy during the period from November 2013 to October 2014 and thereafter manipulated and fabricated records to gain incentives.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the charge was framed, and summons was issued to CW1. While the cross-examination of CW1 was going on, the private counsel engaged by the de facto complainant filed an application requesting permission from the learned Magistrate to produce certain documents. These documents were not seized by the police and were not produced along with the final report. Immediately thereafter, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed Annexure A4 application wherein it was stated that the documents produced along with the application were not produced before the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation due to oversight, and its production is essential for the just decision of the case. To the said application, a detailed objection was filed by the counsel appearing for the accused. The learned Magistrate, by Annexure-A6 order, allowed the application holding that the veracity of the document or whether delayed production would be prejudicial to the accused is a matter of evidence, and by holding so, the application was allowed. The said order is under challenge.

5. Sri. Sherry J. Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Magistrate erred in allowing the application. According to the learned counsel, it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the documents proposed to be brought in evidence which includes incentive sheets, appointment letters, employment certificates, and delivery registers, were neither produced nor seized by the Police during the course of the investigation. Those records are sought to be brought in after the commencement of the recording of the prosecution evidence. It is urged that those documents are concocted pieces of evidence brought in at a belated stage with a view to bringing in concocted evidence against the accused. To substantiate that the order is illegal, reliance is placed on the law laid down in Anand Kumar V State of Madhya Pradesh, (2009) 3 SCC 799 and Sharadbhai Jivanlal Vaniya v State of Gujarat, 2011 (14) SCC 377. It is submitted that Section 173(5) of the Code is clear and specific that the Investigating Officer is bound to forward along with the final report all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely and documents which were not seized during the investigation and do not form part of the report cannot be produced in this fashion.

6. Sri. Lakshmeesh, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent, submitted that though no specific provision was stated in the application filed before the learned Magistrate, there are various provisions in the Code enabling the Court to permit the same. It is submitted that an application could have been entertained under Section 294 of the Code by the learned Magistrate. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate also could have allowed the request by invoking the powers under Section 242(2) of the Code and could have issued summons to any of the prosecution witnesses to pro