ALARAKH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The police had put up a challan for offences u/ss.420, 467 and 468, I.P.C. against the accused-petitioner Alarakh on the allegations that the accused had forged the documents in respect of a motor vehicle No. RSM 2893 (truck) and had also tampered with the chasis number and the year of manufacture, etc., thereof. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and fixed the case for hearing arguments for framing charges against the accused. However, before the arguments for this purpose could be heard, the learned P.P. moved an application requesting the learned Magistrate to permit him to produce some more documents, namely, some complaints filed by one Asgar Ali to the Superintendent of Police, Pali and copies of the statements of certain witnesses recorded by the officer in charge out post Sojat Road in connection with the aforesaid reports. The learned counsel for the accused objected to these documents being produced at this stage as according to him, they were not a part of the police report filed u/s.173(2) of the Cr.P.C. and at the time of framing charges, the Court was expected only to take into consideration the police report and the documents filed along with it. It is not expected to take into consideration any other documents or evidence at that stage. The learned Magistrate partly agreed with the learned counsel for the accused to the extent that these documents cannot be taken to be a part of the police report but at the same time, he disagreed with the other part of the argument of the learned counsel for the accused and held that these documents can be taken into consideration at the time of framing charge as the court is empowered to not only look into the report and the documents filed by the police but also to afford a hearing to the prosecution as well as the accused. He, accordingly, allowed the learned P.P. to produce these documents. Aggrieved of this, the accused has come up before this court.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned P.P. and have gone through the record.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Ss.207, 238, 239 and 240 and urged that when a warrant case is instituted on a police report a copy of police report and the papers filed along with it have to be supplied to the accused as required by S.207, Cr.P.C. The Magistrate has then to take into consideration the police report and the documents sent with it u/s.173, Cr.P.C., and, if necessary, after examining the accused will proceed to consider whether a charge should be framed or not against the accused. If fie finds that the charge against the accused is groundless, he has to discharge the accused u/s.239 but if upon such examination, if any, and hearing the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence..........he shall frame a charge in writing against the accused. The learned counsel urges that thus for the purpose of deciding whether the charge has to be framed or not, the Magistrate has to restrict himself to the documents filed along with the police report u/s.173 and cannot allow the prosecution to produce any other documents at that stage. He further submits that by allowing the prosecution to produce more documents at this stage, the Magistrate has gone beyond his powers u/ss.239 and 240, Cr.P.C. and, therefore, his order deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned counsel P.P. has urged that Ss.239 and 240, of course, refer to the police report and the documents filed along with it but that reference is not in exhaustive terms and does not restrict or prohibit the prosecution from bringing before the court any other material, which may be available to the prosecution to support its case against the accused. He further submits that u/s.242, Cr.P.C., after the charge has already been framed, the prosecution is free to produce before the court documents and evidence which had not been placed before the court at the time of the filing of the police report and the documents with it and if that can be done even at the stage of evidence, there cannot be any restriction for producing the documents before the charge is framed because that will be in the interest of the accused so that he may know of the case, he has to meet when the charge is framed against him on the basis of whatever material is available at that time.