The court held that introducing evidence at a late stage risks undermining the integrity of the proceedings and prejudicing the accused.

ORDER

The complainant in S.T.No.3011/2008, who is the Secretary of Adichanalloor Grama Panchayath, Kollam, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, South Paravoor, dismissing a petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., for recalling PW1 for the purpose of bringing on record the copy of the measurement book (M-book) related to the issue involved in that case.

2. The allegation against the accused in the said case, who is the first respondent herein, is that he failed to remit an amount of Rs.4,33,113/- due to the Adichanalloor Panchayat, as per the terms of the agreement signed, in connection with the removal of sand, mud, clay, soil wastes, etc., from Adichanalloor chira. Though there is no specific averment in the complaint, which the petitioner had filed before the learned Magistrate, it appears that the aforesaid prosecution has been launched alleging the commission of offence under Section 210 of the Kerala Panchyayat Raj Act, 1994.

3. The complainant in that case was examined as PW1 on

31.07.2014. During the cross examination of the complainant, the learned counsel for the accused put a question to him, as to whether he is ready to produce the M-book of the work involved in that case. To the above question, PW1 is said to have replied that no Panchayat could produce the M-book. Since even after prolonged adjournments over a period of about 10 months, the complainant did not care to adduce further evidence, the learned Magistrate posted the case for questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to 05.06.2015. Thereafter, on 05.01.2017, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the case was posted for defence evidence and hearing to 18.02.2017. After the elapse of about 2.5 years, the complainant filed C.M.P.No.3084/2019 before the learned Magistrate under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to re-open the evidence, and to admit on record a document, which was purported to be the attested copy of the M-book. The impugned order relates to the rejection of the request of the petitioner, in the above regard.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent.

5. The reason for declining the request of the petitioner, to invoke the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C for the further examination of PW1 for bringing on record a document, which was purported to be the attested copy of the M-book, has been stated by the learned Magistrate in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order. It has been observed by the learned Magistrate that the attested copy of the document, which was sought to be brought on record, did not instil confidence in the mind of the court regarding its genuinity. It is further observed thereunder that the document was having three pages numbered as ‘1’, ‘5’ and ‘6’, and that in page No.1 and 6, the dates were shown as 26.03.2007 and 09.05.2007. The learned Magistrate further observed in the aforesaid order that the complainant did not make out the circumstances under which a document which they conceded could not be produced so far, till the fag end of the final hearing of the case.

6. There is absolutely no grave illegality or impropriety in the aforesaid order passed by the learned Magistrate, warranting the interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section

482 Cr.P.C.

7. It is to be noted that after the examination of the complainant on

31.07.2014, the prosecution took about 5 years to file the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the above witness, and to bring on record a document, which PW1 had mentioned as a document, which no Panchayat would be able to produce.

8. It is of no doubt that if the petitioner is permitted to bring on evidence the aforesaid document