Mere exhibition of documents does not dispense with the need for their proper proof, and the accused is not required to seek permission under Section 315 of Cr.P.C. before leading evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking the quashing of the order dated 14.09.2022, passed by learned Special Judge, Una, District Una, H.P. It has been asserted that FIR No. 289/2015, dated 18.9.2015 was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(I)(XI) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the complaint of the wife of the present petitioner. She died on 17.11.2021. The trial is pending before learned Special Judge, Una. The accused stated while recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 14.9.2022 that he wanted to lead evidence in defence. He exhibited certain documents as Ex.R-1 to R-16. These documents were taken on record and the matter was listed for arguments. Learned Public Prosecutor had also not objected to the exhibition of the documents. The petitioner came to know of the exhibiting of the documents from the letter written by the District Attorney to the Director, Prosecution on 16.9.2022. The petitioner filed an application for adjournment of his case. The learned Trial Court had wrongly exhibited the documents. The documents are copies of the original documents and could not have been taken on record without prior permission of the Court. No opportunity was given to the other side to rebut the documents or cross-examine the witness. The documents were taken under the Right to Information Act and the original record was never produced. The document could have been exhibited after filing an application under Section 315 of Cr.P.C. and by stepping it into the witness box. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order permitting the exhibition of the documents be set aside.

2. The application is opposed by filing a reply making preliminary submissions that the present petition is not maintainable and the same is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was asserted that respondent no. 2 was prosecuting the case on behalf of the State and he was wrongly arrayed as a party. Respondent No. 2 had objected to the exhibition of the documents but he was told by the Court that the exhibition of the documents would not mean that the same would be taken into consideration. Respondent No.2 informed the Director, Prosecution and the petitioner about the exhibition of documents by writing a letter. The petition has been wrongly filed against respondent no. 2; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

3. I have heard Mr Vikas Rajput, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents no.1 and 2/State and Mr. Lakshay Parihar, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.

4. Mr Vikas Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents were obtained under the Right to Information Act and they are not admissible in evidence. They could not have been exhibited without proper proof. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Special Judge be set aside.

5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents no. 1 and 2 submitted that the mere production of the documents or even marking the exhibit on them does not amount to the proof of a document as is understood in law. It is for the learned Special Judge to see whether the documents were properly proved or not. The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and should not be exercised for mere exhibition of a document. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.

7. It was laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sait Tarajee Khim Chand v. Yelamarti Satyam, (1972) 4 SCC 562 that mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of a document. It was observed:-

“15. The plaintiff