THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.12506 & 12520 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

These Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings in Crl.M.P.Nos.945 and 946 of 2025 in Spl.SC.No.8 of 2021 on the file of the learned Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and Pocso Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (for short the ‘trial Court’).

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Veerababu Gandu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-

State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the trial Court has made an error in allowing applications and that the prosecution cannot put forth new documents causing prejudice to the accused, no new facts can be introduced at a belated stage and thus, the trial Court has made an error in allowing the said applications. Hence, prayed to set aside the said orders.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has collected certain important documents i.e., original Bonafide Certificate of victim issued by the principal of Sri Chaitanya Junior College, hence recalling the said witness and marking the document is essential to prove the case of prosecution. Therefore, the petition was filed by the Spl. PP which was allowed by the trial Court based on sound reasoning. He further relied on the decision reported in Sameer Sandhir Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 Live Law (SC) 627, wherein it was held that even though the documents do not form the part of the charge sheet, they can be produced before the trial Court in support of the prosecution case. In the said case CDs were filed before the trial Court vide supplementary charge sheet. The matter went in appeal to the High Court and the High Court confirmed the said orders and the same was affirmed by the Apex Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The present petition is filed in Spl. Sessions Case filed under POCSO Act. The allegations under POCSO Act referred to heinous offences which would have an impact on the society at large. The

proof of age of the victim girl is one of the important factors in deciding in the offence under POCSO Act.

7. It is pertinent to refer to Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) and the same is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:_

Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C:- “allows the police to conduct a further investigation into an offense even after a final report (such as a chargesheet) has been submitted to the Magistrate. If new evidence is obtained during this further investigation, the police officer must submit a further report to the Magistrate, and the general provisions of Section 173 (including subsections 2 to 6) will apply to this new report. This provision was added to the 1973 Cr.P.C to provide a statutory basis for further investigation, addressing recommendations from the Law Commission.”

8. Thus, the statute envisages that prosecution can collect additional evidence and shall forward it to the Magistrate subsequently after filing the final report. In the present case the prosecution has collected original bonafide certificate issued by Sri Chaitanya Junior College and therefore, has filed the present petition seeking to receive the said document.

9. The Crl.M.P.No.945 of 2025 is filed to summon the witness i.e., the Sri Chaitanya Junior College to appear before the Court and along with the relevant school records and Crl.M.P.No.946 of 2025 is filed to receive the bonafide certificate of the victim. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the document needs to be received in evidence for which the summons are issued to the concerned college, so that an authorized representative of the college would bring the necessary documents along with the concerned records. Therefore there is no infirmity in the procedure adopted by the trial Court.