LAWS(P&H)-2010-5-20

RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On May 11, 2010
RAJINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision-petition has been filed against order dated 12.1.2010 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana whereby an application moved by Additional Public Prosecutor for exhibiting certain documents has been allowed without deciding the objections raised by the petitioner against admissibility of said documents.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that FIR 107 dated 15.11.2.002 under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC was registered against the petitioner as well as other co-accused. After completion of the investigation, challan was submitted against the petitioner and other co-accused. All documents relied upon by the prosecution for the purpose of adjudication of trial were attached with the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Charges were framed against the petitioner as well as his co-accused on 17.5.2007 and case was adjourned on various dates for evidence of the prosecution. On 12.1.2010, learned APP tendered documents Exs. P1 to P9 and closed the case on behalf of the prosecution. An objection was raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner regarding admissibility of these documents but the trial Court without deciding the objections allowed the said documents to be placed on record, which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that when said documents were produced before the Court, no notice was issued to raise objection and the objection raised by the petitioner with regard to admissibility of those documents was not considered. The trial Court has passed totally a non-speaking order without mentioning any reason as to how these documents can be placed on record or how these are necessary or just and proper decision of the case. Learned counsel further submits that the mode of proof or reason for producing these documents at such a later stage has not been mentioned in the impugned order which has resulted into a great injustice to the petitioner.