SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Kunwar Mridul Rakesh, learned senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Kalia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 4th of March, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, court no. 7, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 118 of 1996 under Sections 302/120-B I.P.C. relating to Police Station Gosaiganj, District Faizabad, whereby the application no. 408-B moved by the prosecution for taking documents on record has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after completion of stage of the evidence under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution has made an effort to bring on record some documents, which has been objected by the defence side on the ground that it is barred by Section 164 of the Evidence Act. He further submits that all the documents were well within the knowledge of the prosecution, but they failed to produce the same. Now, at this stage, it can only be placed with the consent of other parties or by the order of court not otherwise.
(3.) THE learned Additional Government Advocate, on the basis of instruction submits that those documents are nothing, but only the orders passed by the different Courts, one is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad and other three documents are the Orders passed by this Court. It is stated that if the orders passed by the different courts are relevant for a fair trial, those cannot be denied to be taken note of and once those Orders are brought to the notice of the court, the court cannot overlook it. Since these are Orders of the Courts, I hereby observe that if the orders are relevant for the fair trial in the matter, definitely court can take note of it, but certainly not as a prosecution evidence.;