ORDER
B.A. Khan, J.
1. Petitioner calls in question orders dated 12-12-1995 and 13-3-1996 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (Sub Judge), Jammu and learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby some documents produced by the respondent were allowed to be taken on record in a complaint filed by him under Section 138-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2 It appears that a complaint was lodged by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 138-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The substance of allegation was put to him under Section 242, Cr.P.C. Thereafter the respondent (complainant) sought to place some documents on record in support of his ease. This was allowed by the Magistrate by placing reliance on a judgment of this Court, 1987 Kash LJ 712 : (1988 Cri LJ 1141) and by overruling the objection taken by the petitioner (accused) that no such document could be permitted to be brought on record after the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 242, Cr.P.C.
3. Petitioner questioned this order of the Magistrate in a revision before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, but failed. The revisional Court took the view that the Magistrate was not debarred from allowing the documents to be placed on record after he had recorded the statement of the accused under Section 242, Cr.P.C. He also found the action in order as according to him, no prejudice was likely to be caused to the accused.
4. This is the second revision filed in a repeat exercise by the petitioner taking by and large the same pleas. He contends that since the complainant (respondent) had made no mention of the documents in quesiton in this complaint and as the documents were neither necessary nor desirable for trial and since his statement stood recorded under Section 242, Cr.P.C., the Magistrate had no competence and power to allow the additional documents to be placed on record.
5. Petitioner's counsel, Mr. Nanda, went a step further to point out that the Magistrate had placed a wrong reliance on Section 94, Cr.P.C. which empowered the Magistrate to call for a document from any party or witness in accordance with the requirements of the provision.
6. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent took a preliminary objection that the present revision was not maintainble. preferred as it was, against an interlocutory order in terms of Section 435(4-A) Cr.P.C. which provided that powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. He, however, justified the impugned action of the Magistrate on the ground that he had the requisite power under Section 244, Cr.P.C. 'to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution'.
7. This revision could be dismissed on the preliminary objection itself because the order of the Magistrate allowing the respondent to produce some additional documents, is undoubtedly an interlocutory order, passed at the intermediate stage of proceedings and for final determination of the complaint. Therefore, the bar imposed by Section 435(4-A) was squarely applicable in the matter.
8. But even so I propose to proceed to examine the grievance of the petitioner on merits. The pleas taken by the complainant lack in substance because no provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins upon a complainant to furnish a list of the documents along with the complaint that he proposed to rely on in the trial in a summons case. Non does any provision debar a Magistrate to allow a complainant to place any documents on record after the substance of the accusation had been put to the accused and where no prejudice is likely to be caused to him.
9. Section 242 falls under Chapter XX of the Code, of Criminal Procedure which deals with the trial of summons cases by the Magistrate. It provides for stating all the substance of the accusation to the accused requiring him to show cause why he should not be convicted. While doing so, he is not confronted with any documents nor required to admit or deny the genuineness or otherwise of such documents, if any, attached to the complaint. As such the question of any prejudice to him by subsequent production of any documents, which the Magistrate may consider necessary for adjudication of the complaint, docs not arise. On the contrary, the Magistrate possesses the power to 'take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution' under Section 244(1), Cr.P.C. That gives him the ancillary power to take documentary evidence of the prosecution also subsequent to the recording of the statement of the accused under Section 242, Cr.P.C. It is also noticed that the controversy related to reliance placed by the Magistrate on Section 94, Cr.P.C. and the judgment of this Court in 1987 Kash LJ 712 : (1988) Cri LJ 1141), is irrelevant. It may be true that Section 94 empowers a Court or an officer incharge of a police station, to issue summons or to order a person for production of any document or other thing which is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. It may also be that the judgment relied upon by the Magistrate deals with a different point. But that by itself does not advance the ease of the petitioner or dilute the power of the Magistrate to allow a party to place documents on record, which he considers necessary for adjudication of the matter and where no prejudice is caused to the other side.
10. In the result I find no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed.