B.R.ARORA,J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.8.92, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application dated 4.10.91, moved by the APP, and admitted certain documents in evidence which were produced by the prosecution.
(2.) A charge -sheet under Section 498A IPC was submitted against the accused by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kalindri (district Sirohi) in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi. The accused was summoned. Before the charges could be framed, an application under Section 294 Cr. P.C. was moved by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for admitting in evidence a letter dated 4.8.88 alleged to have been written by the accused, alongwith an envolope in which this letter was sent by the accused. I was averred in the application that though this letter and the envelope were produced by the complainant at the time of lodging the First Information Report but that could not be produced alongwith the charge -sheet and, therefore, they may be taken on record. This application was opposed by the accused -petitioners but the learned Magisrate, vide its order dated 25.8.92, allowed the application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor and admitted the documents in evidence. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that under Section 294 Cr. P.C. only those documents can be taken on record which do not require any formal proof and the letter dated 4.8.88, and the envelope containing this letter, which have been taken on record, do not fall within this category and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was not justified in taking those documents on record. In support of its contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance over: Ganpat Raoji Suryavanshi v. The State of Maharastra 1980 Cr. L.J. 853 and Om Prakash Agrawal v. The State of Rajasthan 1983 RLW 298. The learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the learned Counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, have supported the order passed by the Court below and submitted that the documents, whose genuineness is not in dispute, can be read in evidence and the learned lower Court has not committed any illegality in taking these documents on record. Their further contention is that even otherwise, under Sub -clause (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer can produce additional charge -sheet or the documents which could not be produced by him alongwith the charge -sheet and, therefore, the order, passed by the Court below, does not require any interference. In support of their contention, learned Counsel for the respondents have placed reliance over: Alarakh v. The State of Rajasthan 1986 Cr. L.J. 1794.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.;