Judgment · High Court · 2007

Crl.M.C.No. 286 of 2007 2(dt.6.12.2006 in C.M.P. 4232/2006), rejected the application. Aggrievedby the said order, the petitioner has come before this Court.2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am satisfiedthat it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to therespondent/complainant for the disposal of this petition. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, thecomplainant cannot possibly have any objection against marking thosethree documents. The learned Magistrate had not at all applied his mindunder Section 294 Cr.P.C. According to the counsel for the petitioner, thecomplainant has been permitted to reopen his evidence and there is nojustification in denying the prayer of the petitioner for such opportunity toadduce further evidence. He further submits that the additional documentswhich the accused wants the court to receive will not retard the progressof the trial in any manner as all that is required is receiving the threedocuments in evidence without formal proof under Section 294 Cr.P.C.4. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner thatthe court below has not applied its mind properly to the facts in the light ofSection 294 Cr.P.C. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the Crl.M.C.No. 286 of 2007 3impugned order deserves to be set aside and the learned Magistrate must bedirected to dispose of Annex.A2 again.5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is setaside and the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of Annex.A2 again, if S.T.No.1921 of 2005 has not been disposed of before this order is placedbefore the learned Magistrate.(R. BASANT)JudgeHOtm