The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution has the right to file additional documents and examine additional witnesses under Section 231 Cr.P.C, but the court has the discretion to permit or dismiss such requests based on relevance to the case and the ongoing trial.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Cr.M.P No. 7324 of 2022 in S.C No. 528 of 2021 vide order dated 24.08.2022 and set aside the same.)

1. This Revision is filed against the order passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Cr.M.P.No.7324 of 2022 in S.C No. 528 of 2021 vide order dated 24.08.2022. The prosecution filed a petition under Section 231(1) Cr.P.C., seeking permission to mark 9 documents and to examine 4 witnesses on the side of the prosecution. That petition was allowed by the trial Court. Against the same, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

2. Brief substance of the petition is as follows:

Copy of the FIR was sent to the Judicial Magistrate No.III through Women Police Constable, by name, Eswari and another Police Constable by name, Rajeswari who was given the duty to attend the post mortem of the deceased and the passport issued to both Women Police Constables are to be marked. The erstwhile Investigation Officer examined a police constable by name, Rajesh, on 18.04.2021 and recorded his statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. That statement was not annexed with the charge sheet. The statement of police constable Rajesh and the passport given to both the women constable are necessary to be marked in the case. On 10.03.2016, a complaint was filed by the Trustee of the Sudalaimadasamy temple before the H.R. & C.E Department and an enquiry was conducted in C.S.R.No.41 of 2016. One Murugan filed the complaint before the Seevalaperi Police Station in C.S.R.No.42 of 2016 and on the undertaking given by one Sudalaimuthu, both the petitions were closed and those documents would reveal the previous motive between the accused and the defacto complainant and two previous cases in Crime No.161 of 2018 and 162 of 2018 were registered regarding the temple dispute. Another document is in O.A.No.24 of 1971, dated 24.01.1972, an order passed by the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE Board and is necessary to be marked to prove the previous dispute between the parties and those documents are necessart to be filed in the case. For marking those documents, the official of the HR & CE Board, by name, Vellaiah, an Inspector HR & CE Board, by name, Paramasivam and the Sub Inspector of Police and others are to be examined as witnesses.

3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondents 1 and 2 is as follows:-

The documents in Crime No.161 of 2018 and 162 of 2018 and C.S.R.Nos.41 of 2016 and 42 of 2016 were already available with the Seevalaperi Police. The erstwhile Investigation Officer failed to investigate regarding this document. The documents are not relevant to the case. Copies of the documents were not furnished to the petitioner and the petition is to be dismissed.

4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondents 3 to 5 is as follows:

Already copies of charge sheet was furnished. Charges were framed and the case is pending for trial. At this stage, the prosecution is trying to introduce so many documents. The prosecution ought to have filed a petition for further investigation. Only after recording the evidence of witnesses, the documents can be brought on record. Only when the statement of the witness was recorded, the respondent can cross-examine the witnesses and prayed the petition to be dismissed.

5. After hearing both sides, the trial Court allowed the petition. Against the same, the revision petitioner has preferred this revision on the following grounds:

The respondent failed to seek for any permission of the Court to conduct further investigation. After the case was posted for trial, collecting the document and seeking examination of additional witnesses is illegal. By seeking permission to mark 7 documents and to examine 4 more witnesses, the nature of the prosecution case is comp