Asha Arora, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by an order dated January 12, 2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24 Parganas (South), Alipore in C. Case No. 4693 of 2004 under Section 406/417/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has preferred the instant application. The operative part of the order under challenge reads as follows: " The petition dated 24/4/2008 filed by the complainant is disposed of on contest with the direction that the complainant is to submit Form(M) 21 of Criminal Rules and Order along with the documents to be produced at the time of recording evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and supply the copies of document, if not supplied already, to each of the accused. To 7/2/2009 for further evidence of P.W. 1."
(2.) It appears from the order impugned that in course of the complainant's evidence before charge, when some documents were sought to be exhibited, objection was raised by the accused on the ground that copies of the documents to be tendered in evidence should be filed by a firisti to enable the accused to inspect the same. By a petition dated April 24, 2008 complainant contended that in a criminal case arising out of a complaint there is no provision in law to file documents to be exhibited by firisti or to supply copies of such documents to the accused.
(3.) Mr. Dastoor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously argued that in warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report section 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code determines the procedure for taking evidence. According to section 244 of the CrPC when the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress that this statutory provision cannot be hedged by any rule made in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution or under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been urged that the Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules 1985 have to be read harmoniously with the statutory provisions and if there be any conflict, the statutory provision shall prevail. Mr. Dastoor submitted that the Criminal Rules and Orders are meant to supplement the statutory provisions of law and are not to be read as in conflict with the law. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, whether the complainant files a firisti of documents or not, the Court is obliged to take all such evidence as may be produced by the complainant and no rule of procedure can infringe such liberty except that of relevancy and admissibility. It has been canvassed that there is no legal obligation upon the petitioner to supply copies of documents to the accused who can apply for certified copies of the documents after they are admitted in evidence. To buttress his argument Mr. Dastoor placed reliance upon the following decisions: 1. (The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay and another Versus L. R. Melwani and another, 1970 AIR(SC) 962) 2. (Municipal Committee, Amritsar through its Executive Officer Versus Shri Labhu Ram and Others, 1970 CrLJ 553) 3. (Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal Versus Vimla Dassi and Others, 1968 CrLJ 1411) 4. (Ramendra Singh Versus Mohit Choudhury and Others, 1969 AIR(Cal) 535) 5. (A.N. Lewis and Another Versus the State, 1974 1 ILR(Del) 410) 6. (Union of India Versus State of Gujarat,2016 SCCOnline(Guj) 1897) 7. (Babu Lal Versus State, 1978 15 AllCric 218)Allhabad 8. (Srilal Shaw Versus State of West Bengal and Others, 1975 AIR(SC) 393) 9. (State of U.P. Versus Durga Prasad, 1975 3 SCC 210) 10. (D. B. Bhappu Versus Parasmal Nemaji Bhimani,1976 78 BLR 500);