(1.) THESE two revisions have been filed by the same accused facing trial in two cases filed by the Income-tax Department for the offence under the Income-tax Act. Crl. R. C. No. 314 of 1986 is against the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl. M. P. No. 404 of 1986 in C. C. No. 133 of 1983, while Crl. R. C. No. 315 of 1986 is against the order passed by the same Magistrate in Crl. M. P. No. 485 of 1986 in C. C. No. 134 of 1983. Both the miscellaneous petitions were filed by the prosecution under section 311, Crl. P. C., seeking to have six additional documents in the first case and one additional documents in the second case, filed by recalling P. W. 1. The offences in both the cases were under sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code, read with section 136 and section 276(c) of the Income-tax Act for assessment orders for different assessment years.
(2.) ON the prosecution filing the above petitions for additional evidence, the petitioner objected to the same contending that the petitions were belated and were bound to prejudice the petitioner-accused and that PW-1 was incompetent to mark them and that permitting production of the documents would result in gaps of the prosecution being filled up.
(3.) RELIANCE was also placed upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bhagwana v. State of U. P. [1953] Crl. L. J. 785, dealing with this petition of law and also a decision in Arjundas v. Basant Lal [1953] Crl. L. R. 980 (Vindhya Pradesh) wherein permission to recall the defence witness for further cross-examination was turned down since it was felt that the same would only enable the parties to fill up the gap in the evidence.