THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.3602 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is the accused in C.C.No.635 of 2007 on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The said case pertains to alleged mismanagement of the properties pertaining to an engineering college and its funds. The offences mentioned in the charge sheet are those punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. It is seen that when the trial was in the middle and some witnesses were examined, the prosecution filed a petition, i.e., Crl.M.P.No.2104 of 2010 in the aforesaid C.C. to file certain additional documents and for permission to examine certain additional witnesses. The learned Magistrate after hearing both sides allowed that petition on 22.03.2011 and questioning the said order, this present criminal petition is filed by the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length about the way in which the prosecution has filed the petition for filing additional documents and examining additional witnesses and argued that it does not need any consideration inasmuch as particulars were not furnished and no reasons were recorded by the learned Magistrate for allowing the petition. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported the order. A perusal of the petition, i.e., Crl.M.P.No.2104 of 2010 filed by the prosecution and also the counter filed by the accused to the said petition would show that both of them are vague. It is however seen that the petition filed by the prosecution consists of the description of the documents and also to whom they were issued. However, nothing is mentioned about their relevancy to the charges. It should be noted here that prosecution has always got the right to adduce additional evidence either documentary or oral and if it serves the ends of justice, it shall be allowed to adduce the same. The Court however is required to record specific reasons, which would be in favour of the prosecution and interest of justice while allowing prosecution to adduce additional evidence. That exercise is not done by the learned Magistrate in this case. It may however be noted that accused is facing charges for mismanagement and misutilisation or misappropriation of the funds of the engineering college in which he worked and the case is of a serious nature. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that though the impugned order suffers from infirmities, the request of the petitioner to set aside the order and direct the trial Court to proceed with the evidence on record cannot be accepted. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that while setting aside the impugned order, the matter should be remanded back to the learned Magistrate directing the prosecution to file all the details regarding the additional documents and the additional witnesses and their relevancy and necessity to the case and charges and thereafter, the trial Court should be directed to dispose of the petition afresh after giving opportunity to the accused. In the above circumstances, the impugned order is set aside remanding the criminal petition to the trial Court with the following directions: 1. The prosecution shall now furnish along with the petition all the details of the relevant documents and the persons to whom they were given and also the relevancy and necessity of the said documents and additional witnesses to be examined in the court and it shall also furnish a copy of the same to the accused. The accused shall be given opportunity to file additional counter. 2. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate may take up the matter afresh and decide it on merits discussing about the relevancy of the documents and the additional witnesses to be examined to the charges and the necessity for the same and pass orders on merits. This petition is accordingly allowed, remanding the Crl.M.P.No.2104 of 2010 to the learned Magistrate. ___________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J. 28th April 2011, Rns