HARI PARKASH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 26.05.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to place on record documents so as to consider the same at the time of deciding the question of framing charge has been dismissed. Notice of motion was issued in this case and learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that the petitioner -accused filed application before the trial Court at the time of framing of charge to place on record some documents i.e. letter No.DRL -4302 dated 21.05.2008, letter No.409 -5A dated 20.05.2008 from DSP City -II, Ludhiana to Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana, letter No.448 -50 -DSP City -II, Ludhiana dated 03.06.2008 addressed to Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana, letter No.2340 -SA(sarl)/ West dated 10.06.2008 from Asstt. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana to Dy. Registrar, C.S. Ludhiana etc. It is written in the application that it is a rarest of the rare case where the Court is justified in looking into the above -said material as the material produced by the accused -applicant convincingly establish that the whole prosecution version is totally absurd, preposterous and concocted.

(3.) LEARNED JMIC, Ludhiana vide order dated 26.05.2011, dismissed this application by stating that from these documents, no inference could be drawn in favour of the accused or even otherwise, accused cannot be discharged on the basis of these document. The accused has a right to cross -examine the witnesses and put the documents to the witnesses at the relevant time for confirmation and also has right to lead the evidence in his defence. The Court also held that it is not the rarest of the rare case as mentioned by the applicant to allow him to place on record the documents at the time of framing the charge. The Court correctly held that the accused has no right to summon the record at the time of framing the charge or place on record any documents.