Preventing the accused from producing relevant documents amounts to a miscarriage of justice and denies the principles of fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records in C.C.No.18953 of 2005 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.V, Egmore, Chennai and set aside the order dated 06.10.2021 made in Crl.M.P.No.19511 of 2021 in so far as declining to admit the documents S.Nos.1 to 16 is concerned.)

1. This petition had been filed to call for the entire records in C.C.No.18953 of 2005 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.V, Egmore, Chennai and set aside the order dated 06.10.2021 made in Crl.M.P.No.19511 of 2021 in so far as declining to admit the documents S.Nos.1 to 16 is concerned.

2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had filed this petition seeking to set aside the order passed by the Learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.19511 of 2021 in C.C.No.18953 of 2005.

3. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondent had initiated a case against the Petitioner, who is practising as a Cardiologist. The case, which registered based on the complaint of the defacto complainant, is nothing but malicious Prosecution. The defacto Complainant examined himself as PW1. After the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses, the Petitioner has to let in evidence. At this juncture, the Petitioner had filed a petition under Section 294 Cr.P.C., seeking permission of the Court for marking certain documents with regard to the dispute between the defacto Complainant and the Petitioner herein before the Rent Control Authority.

4. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor before the Metropolitan Magistrate vehemently objected the petition filed by the Petitioner herein stating that the petition has been filed only to protract the proceedings and a counter was also filed. After conducting due enquiry, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate had dismissed the petition filed in Crl.M.P.No.19511 of 2021. Aggrieved by the same, the Accused before the trial Court has filed this petition seeking to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.19511 of 2021.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner referred to the provisions of Section 294 of Cr.P.C., Sections 79 & 80 of the Evidence Act and also he relied on the judgment reported in CDJ 2009 MHC 2683 in the case of Rakkappan Vs State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Cherambadi Police Station, Uthagamandalam District.

6. It is the contention of the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that the proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C have been completed and the evidence of the prosecution also has been completed.

7. Considering the fact that the Petitioner is arrayed as Accused on the complaint given by the Tenant of the Petitioner, the Respondent Police had conducted investigation and laid final report against the Petitioner herein. Thereafter, the trial commenced. After closing of the evidence of the Prosecution, the petitioner wanted to mark the documents relied upon by him. Hence, he had filed Crl.M.P.No.19511 of 2011 seeking to mark certain documents relied upon by him. However, the Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed on the objection by the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor before the Learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

8. On perusal of the ruling itself, it is found that the petition moved by the Accused seeking marking of documents can be considered by the Court regarding admissibility after production of the documents by the Petitioner, who is the Accused before the trial Court. By preventing him from producing the documents amounts to miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the order of the Learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in dismissing the Crl.M.P.No.19511 of 2021, filed by the Petitioner herein seeking marking of documents is found unacceptable and unreasonable. Therefore, as rightly contended by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and in the light of the reported rulings of the Judgment of the High Cour