Section 231 of the Cr.P.C. allows the prosecution to adduce evidence based on documents already produced by the Investigation Officer during the investigation; it cannot be used to introduce new documents. For summoning documents during trial, the prosecution must move an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2022 INITIATED IN S.C.NO.887/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.154/2020 OF SUDDAGUNTE PALYA POLICE, C.I.D BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 120-B, 114, 302 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the impugned order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge for permitting the prosecution to produce the documents under Section 231 of Cr.P.C in SC No.887/2020 on the file of the LI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city which is arising out of Cr.No.154/2020 of Suddagunte Palya Police, C.I.D Bengaluru for the offences punishable under sections 341, 120-B, 114, 302 read with section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the argument of learned counsel petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner facing the trial in S.C.No.887/2020 and the complainant said to be CW2 who is examined as PW1 and during the examination chief the prosecutor filed application under section 231 of Cr.P.C for production of documents through PW1 for the purpose of marking where the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the same vide order dated 21.11.2022 which is under challenge.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Section 231 of Cr.P.C which provides to adduce the evidence on the document produced by the prosecution which was collected by the Investigation Officer during the investigation but now the documents which was not produced in the charge sheet and now came to be allowed to be marked the same through PW1. Therefore, prayed for allowing PW1 to produce the documents in support of his argument. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of 2021 SCC 1064 in the case of Bhagyashree Prashant Wasankar Vs State of Maharashtra .

5. Per contra learned HCGP objected the petition and contended that the prosecution is having liberty to file application under section 91 of Cr.P.C for summoning documents from any persons who is in custody during the trial and merely mentioning section 331 of Cr.P.C as wrong provision cannot be rejected. Hence prayed for dismissing the petition.

6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, especially the order passed dated 21.11.2022 stated the application filed by the prosecution under Section 231 of Cr.P.C is a document which is known to the prosecution, therefore permitted to allow the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under 231 of Cr.P.C for adducing for the evidence against the prosecution based upon the documents which was collected by the Investigation Officer during the investigation and it was not a new document introduced during the trial. In support of his case he has relied upon the judgment of Bhagyashree Prashant Wasankar Vs State of Maharashtra in Crl.W.P.No.688/2020 wherein the Bombay High Court has held in para "14" as under:

"14. Upon the accused pleading not guilty under Section 230 of the Cr.P.C., a date is fixed for prosecution evidence and under Section 231 thereof, on the date so fixed, the Sessions Court proceeds to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. Such evidence includes the recording