Point of Law :
Sub-section (3) of Section 242 casts a mandatory duty on the Magistrate to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. The word “produced” in sub-section (3) also cannot be given a restrictive meaning to hold that only the materials collected during investigation could be permitted to be produced in evidence. Such a construction would defeat the very purpose of trial. If the main object of criminal trial is to discover truth, necessarily all and every piece of evidence while could help the Court to arrive at a just decision should be allowed to come on record.

ORDER :

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the order, dated 21.09.2017 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1251 of 2017 in C.C.No.327 of 2006 on the file of the VII-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, which was confirmed by the learned V-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, in Crl.R.P.No.16 of 2018 dated 29.03.2019.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., before the VII- Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, against the respondents/A-2 to A-6, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of I.P.C., which was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Basing on the said reference, the Police, Vanasthalipuram Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.116 of 2005 for the aforesaid offences. Eventually, the police, after investigating into the matter, filed a final report referring the case as “Civil Nature” and requested to close the case. Against which, a protest petition was filed by the petitioner /complainant. Thereafter, the trial Court after recording the statement of the witnesses, took the case on file for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. against the accused and numbered the same as C.C.No.327 of 2006.

3. When the aforesaid Calendar Case was coming up for further cross-examination of petitioner/complainant (P.W.1), he filed Crl.M.P.No.1251 of 2017 under Section 242 of Cr.P.C. seeking to receive certain documents annexed to the petition alleging that he could not file the documents in question along with the complaint as some of the documents were not in existence and that the certified copies of some other documents were not obtained. It is further stated that after obtaining the certified copies of the documents, the same were kept in the office, but unfortunately they were mixed up with other files and the same were traced out recently. Therefore, prayed to receive the documents annexed with the petition and mark the same as exhibits. Learned counsel for the respondents/accused opposed the said petition and reported no counter. After considering the rival submissions, the trial Court dismissed the said petition vide order dated 21.09.2017. Challenging the said order, the petitioner/complainant filed Crl.R.P.No.16 of 2018 before the V-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. By an order dated 29.03.2019, while confirming the order passed by the trial Court, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Revision Petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner/complainant; learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner/ complainant that the orders of the trial Court and appellate Court are perverse, arbitrary and bad in law and both the Courts below denied to receive the documents merely on a technical objection and not on any other valid ground or merits. It is also submitted that both the Courts below erred in not considering the explanation of the petitioner/complainant for non-filing of the documents at the time of filing the complaint and arbitrarily rejected the said explanation. If the documents are not received, great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/complainant. The trial Court and appellate Court adopted too pedantic and didactic approach rather than a pragmatic and judicious approach for affirming and reassuring the concept of fair trial and due opportunity. The trial Court and appellate Court also erred in attributing procrastination to the petitioner/complainant while dismissing the receive documents petition as the tactics of procrastination are attributable to the opposite party and not