THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.724 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The petitioner/A.1 questions order dated 15.03.2010 passed by the First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in Criminal M.P.No.3686 of 2009 in C.C.No.385 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to file copies of documents for the purpose of marking them as exhibits in proof of the offences alleged. The Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor filed the said petition in the lower Court alleging that at the time of filing of charge sheet, the de facto complainant/P.W.1 handed over the documents to the Station House Officer, Satyanarayanapuram Police Station and that the police did not file the documents along with charge sheet and that on that day P.W.1 had produced the same documents. The question of receiving copies of documents under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act as secondary evidence raises in case the original documents are lost. In this case the Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor stated in the petition that P.W.1 handed over the documents to the police at the time of filing of charge sheet. The lower Court summoned the Sub Inspector of Police by name P. Satyanandam to find out as to what happened to the original documents. According to his version, his successor Vamsi Krishna did not hand over the case files to him as there was no time and that Vamsi Krishna got relieved immediately by handing over charge to one Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. Thus, P. Satyanandam did not receive the documents from P.W.1 before filing of charge sheet or from his predecessor. Allegation in the petition that P.W.1 handed over all the documents to the police at the time of filing of charge sheet, is found to be incorrect. There is absolutely no indication of record to show that P.W.1 handed over the original documents to the Investigating Officer at the time of recording of his statement under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. There is no proof produced before this Court to show that any police officer obtained the original documents from P.W.1 by any method and it is not reflected in Part-I case diary. There is no dispute that the documents were not seized from P.W.1 by the Investigating Officer under any panchanama or mediators report. Therefore, this Court has to conclude that P.W.1 wanted to introduce the documents for the first time during trial when he was giving his evidence before the lower Court. The prosecution cannot be allowed to fill up gaps in its case during trial, irrespective of authenticity or genuineness of the proposed documents. The question of authenticity or genuineness of a document has to be evaluated only after cross- examination of the witness producing the same or a witness proving that document and after hearing arguments of the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel. It would be premature to conclude whether any document is authenticated or a genuine one. Since this Court is of the opinion that no fresh documents can be introduced during the course of trial for the first time, the order passed by the lower Court is not sustainable in law. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the impugned order passed by the lower Court. ___________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU 24th September, 2010 bud