- (1.) BY the Court. -1.On a complaint lodged by this petitioner, cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 420, 423,468,471 and 120B of the Indian penal Code against the opposite parties. Subsequently, the trial was taken up and the parties adduced their evidences and the matter was fixed for judgment and at that point of time, an order was passed that, khatian would be necessary for just decision of the case and hence, parties were directed to produce the said document. On filing the said document, it was taken in evidence and was marked as exhibit.
(2.) BEING aggrieved by that order the opposite parties filed a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge quashed the order of the learned trial Court by recording that provision as contained in Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure never contemplates about production of documentary evidence. That order was based upon a decision rendered in a case of Bhola Shukla v. State of Bihar and another, 2009(4) East Cr. C 236 (Pat) whereas in a case of Ismail Baba Sahab v. A.A. Hulageri, 1997 Cr.L.J 1804 it has been held that the Court is empowered to permit the parties to produce documents and also to recall, examine, cross -examine and re -examine witnesses if the documents produced are essential for the just decision of the case and this view has been taken by the Court after giving due consideration of the provision as contained in Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, it was submitted that the revisional Court certainly has not taken correct view of the matter. In view of the submission, let notice be issued to the opposite parties 2 to 4 to show cause as to why this application be not admitted, and I or if possible, disposed of at the admission stage itself, for which requisites under registered cover with AID must be filed by 23.12.2011.
(3.) AT the same time, petitioner would be at liberty to take step for personal service of notice upon opposite parties 2 to 4.;