P L D 2019 High Court (AJ&K) 35
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 94---Application for submitting documents along with challan was dismissed---Scope---Complainant had alleged in the FIR that motive of the occurrence was dispute over land and to prove the same---Documents sought to be placed on record were necessary---Validity---Section 94 Cr.P.C. had described that if the production of any document was necessary or desirable for the purposes of any trial by or before any court, such court might issue summons to the person in whose possession or power such document was believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce the same at the time and place stated in the summons---Such power could be exercised by the court at any stage of trial before the judgment was delivered---Court must exercise the power if production of document was necessary and desirable for proper decision and administration of justice---No bar for the court to permit a document to be taken on record irrespective of fact that it was not filed along with report under S.173, Cr.P.C., or charge sheet---Additional evidence, oral or documentary, could be produced during the course of trial if in the opinion of the court production of the same was essential for the proper disposal of the case---Circumstances suggested that the documents sought to be placed on record were necessary to prove the motive as alleged in the FIR---Investigating Officer was responsible to annex those documents with the report under S.173 Cr.P.C. and investigate the matter in that regard---Complainant had specifically mentioned in the FIR that motive for the occurrence was land dispute between the parties and he had alleged that during the course of investigation, he submitted said documents but unfortunately same were not brought on record---Complainant could not be penalized for the fault of Investigating Officer because if ultimately, it was opined that the motive for the occurrence was not proved, in absence of any documentary evidence, then there would be no alternate for the prosecution---Defence had opportunity to rebut the said documents during course of trial---Relevancy of said documents might be adjudged by the Trial Court at the time of final adjudication---Both the sides had full opportunity to prove or disprove the documents during the trial proceedings---Revision petition was accepted by setting aside the impugned order, in circumstances.
0 Comments