HARI CHARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the order of Shri G.L. Mittal, Magistrate 1st Class, dated 11-6-1951, made on an application under Section 94, Criminal P. C., filed by the petitioner as an accused in a case under Section 408, 420, I. P. C., for the production of certain documents. On this application, the learned Magistrate passed the following order:

(2.) The proceedings are forwarded for revision on the following grounds: The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under Section 94, Criminal P. C., the Court should summon the documents asked for by the accused before the charge has been framed in a case and an application for production of documents under Section 94 cannot be rejected, merely because the accused can make such an application under Section 257, Criminal P. C., after he has entered upon his defence. In support of his contention, he relies on the Full Bench authority reported in -- 'Mohammad Rahim v. Emperor', AIR 1935 Sind 13 (A). It was held in that case that there was nothing under Section 94, Criminal P. C., which restricted the use of the machinery provided therein to any particular stage of an investigation, enquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code and Sections 94 and 257 are not antagonistic but interdependent. Under Section 94, an accused may at any stage apply to the Court to call for the production of a document and is entitled to its production if he satisfies the Court that such production is necessary or desirable for the purpose of such enquiry, trial or other proceeding. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has not held that the production of the documents called for was not necessary or desirable for the purpose of the enquiry or trial. As urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary that these documents should be produced in Court in order to facilitate the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses at this stage before the Court considers the question of framing a charge against the accused.

(3.) The petitioner had applied for the production of Patiala Hotel Register alleged to contain entries relating to the stay of the petitioner in the said Hotel from 15-21943 to 17-2-1948. These entries will be relevant for determination of the authenticity of the document (Ex.: P. W. 4/A) which is dated 15-2-1948. Similarly, the other documents mentioned in para. 10 of the application are relevant for the defence of the petitioner. Some of these documents are in the possession of the Registrar, Joint Stock Companies, Delhi, and others, in possession of the Manager, Lakshmi Insurance Company, Delhi, and Manager, Saraswati Insurance Company, Delhi. It cannot, therefore, be held that the application for calling these documents had been made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.