ORDER :

PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.1276 of 2022 in C.C.No.116 of 2021 dated 26.10.2022 and set aside the same.

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1276 of 2022 in C.C.No.116 of 2021.

2. The brief facts in brief:

This Criminal Revision Petitioner is facing charges under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) and 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act before the Special Court. During the course of trial process, the account statement of this petitioner from Federal Bank was obtained by the respondent on the ground that during the course of investigation it was found that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was credited in the petitioner's account in connection with the above said commission of crime. Even though the Bank statement was collected, it was not presented along with the final report due to over sight. So the prosecution sought the permission of the Court to produce the document by filing the above said petition.

3. It was resisted by the revision petitioner stating that the crime is of the year 2018 and the Account statement alleged to have been obtained during the course of trial. So that document cannot be permitted to be marked. No proper application was filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. There is a long delay in filing the petition. Moreover, the deponent is not the Inspector of Police attached to the Anna Nagar Police Station. On the date of investigation, he was working somewhere else.

4. The trial Court allowed the petition on the ground that the revision petitioner has not denied the Account statement. As per the Bankers Book Evidence Act, it can be deemed to be a genuine document and is also found that a transaction really took place in the above said account. On that ground it was allowed.

5. A series of arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner on the ground that as mentioned above, the above said document was collected only during the course of trial. For collecting new evidence, no permission was obtained by the respondent under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C.

6. The next ground is that the deponent, who filed the above said petition, become functus officio on the date of the petition, since already investigation was over and final report was filed before the Special Court. For that purpose, the petitioner would rely upon the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Bhagyashree Prashant Wasankar Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Police reported in 2021 Latest Caselaw 9247 Bom. He would heavily rely upon the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in paragraphs 21 and 22 and would submit that a party to the trial process cannot be permitted to produce the document without following the procedure provided under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

7. No doubt, that the proper procedure was not followed by the respondent, while collecting the above said additional document, which clearly shows that it was not collected during the course of investigation, but, during the course of trial, as we find it from the date of issue as 30.06.2022. So, definitely, it was not collected at the time of investigation. Therefore, the respondent ought to have sought permission from the Court to collect the additional evidence. Hence, the course adopted by the respondent is not proper.

8. The petition was presented under Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner was asked to respond to the point that was decided by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Varsha Garg Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2022 SCC online SC 986, wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court was of the view that Section 311 Cr.P.C., can be invoked by the trial Court for the purpose of finding out the truth. Para 51 of the Judgment is relevant for reconsider