ORDER

Present petition is filed under Section 482 of CrPC against the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena in S.T. No. 303/2017 wherein, application under Section 233 of CrPC filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

The facts in brief to decide the present petition are that the petitioner is facing trial under Section 302, 294/34 of IPC as S.T. No. 303/2017. During the stage of examination of defence witnesses, petitioner filed an application under Section 233 CrPC before the trial Court, which was dismissed by order impugned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is perverse and agains the settled principle of law. The trial Court exercising its right under Section 319 CrPC has arrayed the petitioner as an accused and present petitioner is facing the trial. The petitioner has a right under Section 233 CrPC to call for the documents or witness, however, the trial Court while dismissing the application under Section 233 CrPC committed error by not allowing the petitioner to avail his right. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside and petitioner be permitted to present the defence in the matter by giving him an opportunity to call for Shri R.K.S. Rathore to give his defence.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State argued that the impugned order is passed in accordance with law and there is no need for interference in the same.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record.

The perusal of record reveals that the application under Section

233 CrPC was filed praying to call for concerned SDOP, who has conducted the enquiry and filed his report bearing No.

. ./ / ./ . /161/17 dated 06.09.2017. The record also reveals पप अ ममुररैनन शशिकन जज ओज that the said enquiry report dated 06.9.2017 has already been there in the recored and the same was exhibited as D-1 and D-2.

Section 294 of CrPC is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:- “S. 294. No formal proof of certain documents.- (1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.

(2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.

(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed;

Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.”

In the present case, the prosecution has not challenged the genuiness of the aforesaid document, therefore, the trial Court has rightly observed that summoning the concerned SDOP is not required to prove the signature in the document.

Consequently, in the opinion of this Court, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order impugned warranting interference exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC.

Accordingly, present MCRC sans merit and is herey dismissed.

(SUNITA YADAV)

JUDGE AKS