Bombay High Court
Shakh Sadique Shaikh Jameel vs State Of Maharastra Through Its Police ... on 19 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9376
Judgment wp178.25
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 178 OF 2025.
Sheikh Sadik Sheikh Jamil,
Aged about 30 years, Occupation
Business, resident of Jamb Bajar,
Tahsil Pusad, District Yavatmal. ... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1.State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
P.S. Pusad City, Tahsil Pusad,
District Yavatmal.
2.Dr.Akhil s/o Jusabhai Menon,
Aged about 62 years, Occupation
Business, resident of Gujari Chowk,
Tahsil Pusad, District Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS.
---------------------------------
Mr. H.S. Chawhan, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.M. Joshi, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
Mr.S.S. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
----------------------------------
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 19, 2025.
Rgd.
Judgment wp178.25
2
ORAL JUDGMENT.
Heard. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned A.P.P. for
Respondent No.1 and Shri Shinde, learned Counsel for Respondent
No.2, waive notice. By their consent, the matter is taken up for final
disposal.
2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated dated 07.01.2025
passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pusad below Exh.12 in
R.C.C. No.258/2022, whereby the application filed by the complainant/
respondent no.2 is allowed.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under :
First information report was registered against the petitioner
for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 468 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, alleging misappropriation to the tune of
Rs.18,44,250/-. After registration of the first information report,
investigation was carried out and charge sheet came to be filed on
Rgd.
Judgment wp178.25
30.07.2022. After filing of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken and
charge was framed against the petitioner on 19.08.2024. Thereafter on
07.01.2025, an application at Exh.12 was filed by the original
complainant/ present respondent no.2 praying that the documents
enlisted at List "A" be permitted to be produced on record. On the very
same day, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pusad passed one
word order "Allowed". Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner
/accused has approached this Court.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly
the order is without jurisdiction; secondly he submits that after farming
of charge said application was filed, which is not permissible and thirdly,
no notice was given to the petitioner/accused before passing the
impugned order.
5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent
no.2 submits that the documents are necessary for adjudication of the
controversy. The Court below has rightly passed the order and that no
prejudice is caused to the petitioner. He therefore, prays for dismissal of
Rgd.
Judgment wp178.25
the petition.
6. I have perused the application, as well as gone through the
impugned order. I am surprised that the impugned order was passed
without recording reasons therefor. The Court below has only observed
"Allowed". I have also perused the application at Exh.12, and I do not
find any reason mentioned therein. Further nothing is mentioned as to
why those documents are relevant in the criminal proceedings.
7. It is necessary to note that after filing of the charge sheet, the
proceedings have further progressed and even charge is farmed on
19.08.2024. However, the application was filed on 07.01.2025, and the
same day the said application was allowed. It would be useful to refer to
the procedure contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Firstly the first information report can be registered under Section 154
of the Code, after conducting investigation and collecting necessary
documents, charge sheet can be filed under Section 173 of the Code.
Further, Section 173[8] provides for further investigation and on
completion of this further investigation, supplementary charge sheet can
Rgd.
Judgment wp178.25
be filed. When these provisions contemplate registration of offence,
collection of evidence, collecting documentary, as well as oral evidence,
and after completing investigation report under Section 173 and further
investigation under Section 173[8] of the Code, and thereafter,
supplementary charge sheet is also permissible. However, a novel
procedure which is unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure was
adopted by the respondent no.2 by filing an application dated
07.01.2025 for production of documents, and to the utter surprise the
Court has allowed the same without recording any reasons.
8. When the law contemplates that a particular thing is to be
done in a particular manner, that it is expected from the Courts to do that
thing in a particular manner only. The application dated 07.01.2025
ought not to have been entertained. That application was not filed by the
prosecution. Further it is to be noted that it was filed after framing of the
charge, and the concerned court has allowed the same even without
issuing notice to the petitioner/ accused. Such exercise would
tentamount to violation of principles of natural justice, as well as illegal,
as there is no such procedure provided in the Code of Criminal
Rgd.
Judgment wp178.25
Procedure.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in case of
Central Bureau of Investigation .vrs. R.S. Pai and another - (2002) 5
SCC 82, has held that "the Code of Criminal Procedure does not
contemplate any procedure for a witness to directly produce document
during the course of trial. The procedure known to law whereby
additional documents can be produced on record and then relied upon in
a Sessions Trial is through the channel of further investigation,
contemplated under Section 173[8] of the Criminal Procedure Code."
Even going through the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, in
the entire scheme contemplated therein, what can be seen is that there is
no provision available for a witness to directly seek production of
additional documents during the course of Trial, and at the time of
recording of evidence. The additional documents can be produced by
following the further process of investigation as contemplated under
Section 173[8] of the Code, and the prosecutor is the person who can
take a call as to whether such documents needs to be produced in order to
Rgd.
Judgment wp178.25
prove the charge against the accused.
10. However, in the present case, a novel method is innovated
by the respondent no.2 by directly filing an application before the
concerned Magistrate and the Magistrate has also allowed the said
application without there being any reason for allowing the same. It is
further to be mentioned that even the Magistrate has not bothered to
issue notice to the petitioner/accused. Production of such document has
caused serious prejudice to the accused and the same amounts to denial of
opportunity, particularly to the petitioner/accused and therefore, the
order does not sustain in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Hence, the following order.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of.
(ii) The order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Pusad below Exh.12 in R.C.C.
No.258/2022, is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
JUDGE
Rgd.
Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 19/09/2025 15:03:08
