1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8941 of 2011 Anna Sugitha Natesan ...petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Inspector of Police, Asaripallam Police Station, Kanyakumari District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the order of dismissal, dated 02.06.2011, passed in Crl.M.P.No.4196 of 2008 in C.C.No.95 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil and allow the petition. For petitioner : Mr.J.John Jayakumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Kannithevan Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed by the aggrieved petitioner/accused, who filed the petition in Cr.M.P.No.4196 of 2008, before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil, against its dismissal and seeks for setting aside the order of dismissal. 2.The case of the petitioner, in brief, are as follows: The respondent police had filed a charge sheet for the offence under Section 420 and 406 I.P.C. and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.95 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil and the case is ripe for trial and the prosecution witnesses are about to be examined on the side of the respondent/State and in the meanwhile, the petitioner has sought for production of certain documents, which are necessary for appreciating the case of the defense, under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The documents, which are necessary for appreciation of the entire case, have been listed, which are in the custody of Panchayat Board President, Peruvilai Panchayat Union, Block Development Officer, Rajakkamalam and the Assistant Director of Panchayats, Nagercoil. Therefore, the petitioner seeks for issuing necessary subena or summons with a direction to produce the sai documents, listed in the petition before the said Court for the purpose of trial. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The contentions raised by the respondent would be as follows: The investigating officer had investigated the case and had produced all the documents, which are necessary for the purpose of trying the case along with the charge sheet. Further, the petitioner accused has not stated any reason as to how those documents listed in the petition are relevant to the case and necessary for the purpose of the defense. The petition filed by the petitioner/accused was to prolong the case as long as possible and therefore, the petition may be dismissed. 4.The learned Judicial Magistrate having considered the case of both sides after hearing the arguments on either side, had come to the conclusion that those documents are not necessary for the purpose of the case and had dismissed the petition. 5.Heard Mr.J.John Jayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Kannithevan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent State. 6.I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 7.Now, the only point to be seen in this case would be that whether the learned Judicial Magistrate has applied his mind, while refusing the documents listed by the petitioner, to be summoned and produced, for the purpose of the trial of the case. 8.The objection raised by the respondent would be that those documents sought to be produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate have already been produced along with the charge sheet and therefore, they are not necessary for the purpose of the case. Similarly, it has also been contended before this Court that the evidence on the side of the prosecution has not been commenced and in the meanwhile, there is no necessity for the purpose of sending for those documents in order to enable the Court to come to a correct conclusion or to substantiate the case of the defence. It has also been contended by the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) that the documents are not relevant for the purpose of case. 9.First of all, when I peruse the documents, which has been listed along with the petition filed by the petitioner before the Court, I could see that there are about 8 documents in the custody of Peruvilai Panchayat and 5 documents in the custody of the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union, Rajakkamangalam and only one document in the custody of Assistant Director, Panchayat, Nagercoil. Those documents are said to have been produced along with the charge sheet. When I peruse the charge sheet, the list of documents relied upon by the prosecution was attached at the end of it, which are shown to be 9 in numbers. Except the letter dated 23.03.2009, written by the Block Development Officer, Rajakkamangalam, addressed to the Assistant Director, Panchayats, Nagercoil and the report of Deputy Block Development Officer, Rajakkamangalam, dated 23.07.2011, other documents are not in connection with the Panchayat Board or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Block Development Officer or Assistant Director, Panchayat Union, Nagercoil. Therefore, the finding of the learned Judicial Magistrate that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner were already produced in charge sheet is not correct. It would also show that the learned Judicial Magistrate did not apply his mind, while passing such order. The necessity or the relevancy of the documents can not be decided at this stage and the same could be considered at the time of adducing oral evidence, either on the side of the prosecution or on the side of the defnece. If the documents are irrelevant as contended by the learned Government Advocate (criminal side), it need not be admitted in the evidence at the time of recording of oral evidence. However, those documents may by essential for the purpose of defending the case of the accused, during the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. The Courts should always keep their mind wide open and permit the parties to adduce evidence, especially in the case of accused persons, who are entitled to defend their case. 10.In the said circumstances, the order passed by the learned Judicial No.1, Nagercoil to the effect that the documents, which are necessary for the purpose of the case were already produced along with the charge sheet and the documents sought for by the petitioner are not relevant has to be set aside. The Judicial Magistrate ought to have given opportunity to the petitioner to produce those documents, by examining those persons, who are in custody of those documents. 11.Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil, dated 02.06.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.4196 of 2008 in C.C.No.95 of 2008 pending on his file, refusing to send for documents in the custody of the public office is liable to be set aside. 12.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil, dated 02.06.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.4196 of 2008 in C.C.No.95 of 2008 pending on his file is hereby set aside and consequently, the said petition is ordered. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil. 2.The Inspector of Police, Asaripallam Police Station, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8941 of 2011 arul 17.11.2011 NSV/2.12.11/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/