IN RE: S. ARUMUGHAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is accused 3 in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1973 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, and he has preferred this revision petition against the order of the learned Judge dt. 5th July 1975 in Crl. M.P. 495 of 1975 and Crl. M.P. 528 of 1975 allowing both the petitions and directing a document to be sent to the hand -writing expert for examining it and giving his opinion and directing recall of (sic) a witness for the purpose of proving a document sought to be marked by the prosecution. The above two petitions Nos. 495 and 528 of 1975 were filed before the trial Court by the prosecution, of which one is to send the document Ex. P -98 and the document filed along with the petition said to have been written by accused 3 to his wife, to the handwriting export, for his examination and opinion, and the other to recall P.W. 16 for the purpose of marking the documents filed in Court and proving the same. Further, it is alleged in those petitions that those documents were written by the third accused and that due to oversight, steps could not be taken earlier for sending the documents to the hand -writing export for his examination and opinion and the marking of these documents is important to corroborate the evidence of P.W. 16 and to the complicity of accused 3 in the conspiracy. Accused 3 by filing a counter, stoutly resisted the petitions. According to, him, there was no mahazar for the seizure of the document and there was no mention of those documents in the committal Court or in the Sessions trial when they are originally tried and the said documents have been produced four years after the alleged seizure. Further, it was contended that as the trial has come to a close, this attempt at filling up the gaps in the prosecution at this stage would only cause prejudice to the accused. Considering the arguments of both parties, the trial Court passed the abovesaid order.

(2.) MR . Rangavajjula, appearing for the Petitioners, would vehemently urge that if the prosecution is allowed to put in incriminating documents stage by stage against the accused, it would tantamount to allowing the prosecution to fill up the gap and to let in rebuttable evidence at each and every stage as the proceedings go on. According to him, this kind of attitude on the part of the trial Court will cause much prejudice to the accused and hamper the defence. In support of this contention, he would bring to my notice the judgment rendered by me in T. Bhashyam v. State, (1975) T.L.NJ. 60:, 1975 L.W. (Cri) 53 wherein it had been observed that every prosecutor, or in the case of a private complaint the complainant, is expected to go through all the documents which are in his possession pertaining to the issue and to be more vigilant during the time of the trial of the case and that the Court, in exercising the powers given under Section 540 of the old Criminal Procedure Code, and summoning any person to be re -examined should pass the order on principles of equity and justice. In other words, the limits of the Court's jurisdiction must obviously be dictated by the exigency of the situation and fair -play and good sense, and this power must be exercised only in suitable cases in the interests of Justice.

(3.) WITH the above directions, the petition is allowed.