STATE Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks a revision of the order dated 31-2-1973 passed Toy the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby, he maintained the order of the Munsiff Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu dated 2-1-3-1972 refusing to allow the prosecution to produce and prove a document for the first time tendered in evidence after charge had been framed against the petitioner under section 403 of the Ranbir Penal Code. Before I deal with the point of law which arises for consideration, I would like to state precisely the facts for the limited purpose of appreciating the point at issue,

(2.) The petitioner was working as a Salesman in the Rehari Branch of a Cooperative Society known as "the Co-operative Wholesales Ltd " As such salesman, it is alleged, he committed criminal breach of trust, an offence punishable under section 408 RFC. After completing the investigation, the Police Station, Pacca Danga. Jammu, presented a charge-sheet before the Munsiff Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Jammu. on 8th of December, 1970. The charge was framed on 25th of October, 1971, a little less than one year after the date of presentation of the charge-sheet, a job which could have been done even on the date of the presentation of the charge-sheet. The case was then adjourned to 27th of March, 1971, with a direction to the Prosecuting Officer to produce the evidence. On 27th of November, 1971, even when some prosecution witnesses were present the counsel for the prosecution made an application seeking an amendment in the charge so as to bring it in accord with the FIR. A copy of the charge list evidencing prima facie the quantity of the goods mis-appropriated was also tendered with a prayer that the same may be allowed to be produced and proved. The later-mentioned prayer appears to have been resisted by the defence mainly on the ground that the accused would be prejudiced in the event of the document being allowed to be produced. It was contended that the document not having been relied upon or produced at the time of presentation of the charge-sheet its production could not be allowed. The trial Magistrate dis-allowed the prayer holding that the production of the document would cause prejudice to the accused. Having felt aggrieved of the order, the prosecution approached the Sessions Judge, Jammu, in revision. The Sessions Judge also adopted the same reasoning and having declined to refer the matter to this court dismissed the revision application.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties.