RAJALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 2nd accused in a prosecution for the offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 409 of the IPC. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. When the matter was posted for trial, the Prosecutor in charge of the case filed certain documents to be received in evidence. These documents were not seized by the police in the course of investigation and was not referred to in the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. submitted by the Investigating Officer. The reception of the documents was opposed. But, by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate overruled the said objection and directed that the documents can be received in evidence as the documents "are essential for the just decision of the case and for the ends of justice". The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the order.

(2.) The procedure that is to be followed is admittedly the one Under Chapter XIX-A of the Cr.P.C. relating to warrant cases instituted on police report. Section 242(3) of the Cr.P.C. stipulates below:

(3.) It is by now trite that the expression of "all such evidence as may be produced in support the prosecution" is not limited or circumscribed by the stipulations in Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. In an appropriate case, the Prosecutor is certainly justified in relying on the documents which have not been seized by the police in the course of investigation and copies of which have not been furnished under Section 173(5) of the Cr.P.C. The position is beyond controversy and it has been held in so in the decision reported in Central Bureau of investigation v. R.S. Pai, 2002 2 KerLT 149. There is no contention before me that these document are not relevant or essential for a just decision of the case. The first contention urged is that these documents were not seized in the course of investigation and were not filed along with the final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C The further contention is that no proper formal application has been filed by the Prosecutor and the documents have been filed only along with the memo as produced by he de facto complainant through the Prosecutor.