S.K. Mohanty, J.
1. Accused is in revision against order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, not allowing his prayer to read as evidence certain receipts filed by him or to recall the complainant for further examination with reference to the receipts or to afford reasonable opportunity to the accused to prove the same.
2. Accused petitioner is being tried for the offences Under Sections 419 and 420, IPC. in the Court below. Statement of the accused petitioner was recorded on 19-9-1988. He declined to adduce evidence and argument was heard on that day. The case was then posted to 24-9-1988 for judgment. On 23-9-1988 the accused filed a petition stating that he was filing some money receipts which may be read as evidence in the case, if their genuineness is not disputed or also complainant may be recalled for further examination or reasonable opportunity may be given to the accused to prove those receipts.
3. It is urged on behalf of the accused, that the trial Court should have allowed his prayer to bring the receipts in question on record as they were essential to the just decision of the case.
4. In the impugned order dated 30-9-1988 with reference to the petition dated 23-9-1988, the learned Magistrate has observed :'it will be just and proper not to recall the complainant to prove the documents as the complainant may avoid to prove these documents. As the defence wants to prove the documents in support of his case, the defence should take the risk of proving the same.' He however further observed, that though a list of documents has been filed, the relevant documents have not been filed along with the list and thus the Court has no chance to verify and ascertain the relevancy of those documents. On these grounds, he rejected the prayer of the accused. Thereafter on 1-10-1988, Advocate for the accused filed the receipts in question explaining that he had duly filed the same in Court but had taken them back at the instance of the bench clerk and prayed for their acceptance.On this, the learned Magistrate by order dated 13-10-1938 rejected the prayer on the ground that the petition had been filed at argument stage and there was no separate prayer for giving chance to prove the documents. Then the accused filed two petitions on 2-11-1988 praying for' acceptance of the documents and recalling the complainant or giving him a chance to prove the same. The learned Magistrate by order dated 8-11-1988 rejected both the prayers on the technical ground that the earlier orders are not open for review by him.
5. For proper appreciation, the case of the complainant may be stated in brief. The complainant is the Deputy Manager in charge of legal matters of Orissa State Co-operative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd. (for short, 'OMFED'). The business of OMFED is to procure, process and market milk and milk products. In the process it supplies milk to various institutions like hospitals, schools etc. Complainant alleged that the accused falsely representing himself as the Diet-in-charge of the Institute of Paediatrics, Sishu Bhawan, Cuttack, requested the Managing Director, O M F E D on 1-12-1981 to supply 20 litres milk daily to Sishu Bhawan. Accordingly, the Director believing the representation to be true, started supplying OMFED milk to the accused for catering the needs of the children's hospital, i. e. Sishu Bhawan, at the rate of 20 litres per day on credit. The accused used to collect the credit bills regularly from the office of the OMFED and make occasional payments. It was noticed subsequently that the accused was in heavy arrears to the tune of Rs. 20,780/- and on inquiry it was ascertained that accused was not really the Diet-in-charge of Sishu Bhawan, but was a private contractor and was raising separate bills on the Institution for supply of milk and taking payments from Sishu Bhawan.
6. The accused denied to have made any false representation to OMFED authorities. According to him in his own capacity, he purchased milk from OMFED and as contractor of Sishu Bhawan supplied the same to the institution raising separate bills therefor. The list of documents filed by the accused on 23-9-1988 describes the documents in sufficient detail and ex facie they appear to be relevant for just decision of the case. When the learned Magistrate discovered while writing out order dated 30-9-1988 that the documents in question had not been filed along with the list, in fitness of things he should have called upon the accused to file them. Moreover, when the accused filed the receipts on 1-10-1988, the learned Magistrate was not justified in rejecting the prayer of the accused to bring the documents on record on the grounds that they had been filed at the argument stage and no separate prayer was made tor proving the same. Subsequent prayer of the accused has been turned down on an unsatisfactory ground. The learned Magistrate does not seem to have been alive to the principles of law underlying Sections 294 and 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. A criminal trial is not finally concluded upon evidence being taken and arguments being heard. It continues till judgment is delivered and therefore the power to examine witnesses Under Section 311 of the Code can be exercised so long as judgment has not been pronounced. The word 'just' ensuring in Section 311, Cr PC cautions a Court against taking any action which may result in injustice either to the accused or to the prosecution. Now the scope of Section 294 of the Code and duty of trial Court may be briefly stated. This is a new provision inserted in the Code by Amendment Act, 1973. Before such amendment, all documents relevant in a criminal case were required to be proved in the regular way and waiver of formal proof was not permissible. Section 294 aimed at slimming the procedure has been introduced to dispense with avoidable waste of time in calling a witness to prove a document; which required formal proof, through the elaborate and long drawn procedure, even though the facts contained therein are not disputed by the other side, and thereby to facilitate speedy trial of criminal cases. The virtual effect of Section 294 is to make Sections 67 to 71 of the Evidence Act inapplicable where the genuineness of the documents is admitted. The document being primary or secondary or corroborative is not relevant for attracting Section 294. This section in terms also does not require either the prosecution or the defence to file an application. It is enough if the documents are on record and either side orally requests the Court to apply the section. The word 'genuineness' of a document embodied in the section would mean not only genuineness of the signature but also the contents thereof. Once the genuineness of the signature and contents is admitted. Section 294 squarely applied and the documents may be read in evidence in the trial meaning thereby that the documents can be used at the trial for disposal of the case in the same manner as any other document proof of which is not dispensed with. Refrain from such procedure is not invariable and is dependent upon circumstances and expediency in a given case, in view of the proviso to Sub-section (3) of the section. Thus once documents filed by a party in a criminal case are ex facie found relevant and necessary for just decision of the case, a Criminal Court has no option but to apply Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and read them in evidence if the genuineness is not disputed by the other side. If, however the genuineness is disputed, then the learned Magistrate, if so prayed, has to afford an opportunity to the p3rty to bring the documents on record by recalling any witness already examined or calling a fresh witness to prove those documents.
8. Now the above position of law may be applied to the facts of the case. Since the judgment in the case had not been delivered. the trial had not concluded and therefore the Court had ample power to examine any witness Under Section 311 of the Code for just decision in the case. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the complainant did not dispute that the receipts filed by the accused were relevant and necessary for just decision of the case. When on the first occasion, the learned Magistrate found that the accused had only filed a list of documents, without attaching the documents in question, he should have called upon the accused to file the same. Thereafter when the documents were tiled in Court and prayer was made for acceptance of the same Under Section 294 of the Code and to recall the complainant or give him a chance to prove the documents, the prayer was rejected taking the erroneous view that he was called upon to review his earlier order. It is apparent that the learned Magistrate has acted illegally in rejecting prayers of the accused. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained.
9. In the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to re-decide the question keeping above observations in mind.