N SASIKALA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the third accused in E. O. C. C. No. 202 of 1997 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences Court No. 1, Egmore, Chennai. THE prosecution filed a petition under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for certain documents and a memo of objection was filed by the defence. Taking into consideration, the petition and the memo of objection, the trial court permitted the prosecution to call for the documents. Aggrieved by that, the revision has been filed.

(2.) ACCORDING to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, though certain documents were listed in the complaint itself, additional documents were sought to be introduced after examination of the prosecution witnesses. For the second time also, one more document was called for and admitted in evidence. When P. W. 3 was about to be examined, another set of documents was sought to be called for, that was objected to by the defence on the ground that such piecemeal introduction of documents would prejudice the defence. He would further submit that technically Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, cannot be relevant when a witness is asked to give evidence on the documents sought to be produced. Of course, the objection is only hyper-technical. No doubt Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, does not speak about examination of any witnesses and it only talks about production of documents. But under Section 244(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the application of the prosecution, the trial court can issue summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or any other thing. Merely because subpoena was issued under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the power of prosecution available under Section 244, subsection (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be curtailed. Therefore, technical objection has to be overruled.