JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous application is directed against the order dated 9-11-81 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (2). Jaipur City, by which he rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 294, Cr.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 61 /81. 2. Looking to the nature of the case, it will be of no use to state the facts in detail. It will be sufficient to write that on the basis of a report lodged by one Ramdayal on 31-1-80 a case was registered and investigation was started and after the completion of investigation a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-applicants. After the submission of the charge sheet it revealed that no investigation was done in connection with those letters which were submitted by the petitioners during the course of investigation. It was also revealed that those letters were not submitted in the court alongwith the charge sheet. Therefore, an application was moved by the petitioner to summon those letters. The learned trial court ordered to produce the letters and the same were submitted in the shape of photostat copies. The accused-petitioners then moved an application with the averment that the prosecution should be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents as is provided under Section 294, Cr. P.C. The learned lower court after hearing the parties rejected the application stating that the admission or denial at this stage cannot be recorded. Hence, this application. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge is improper and illegal. It was further submitted by him that the interpretation of Sec 227 and 294, Cr. P.C. given by the learned lower court is not justifiable Shri Jain appearing for the complainant and the learned P.P. fairly conceded that they have no objection if the trial court is directed that before proceeding further in the talc it a formalities of Section 294, Cr. P.C. may be observed. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The only point which is to be determined in this case is as to at what stage of the proceedings formalities of Section 294, Cr.P.C. are to be observed. For this purpose, it will be useful to reproduce Section 294, Cr. P.C. may be observed. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The only point which is to be determined in this case is as to at what stage of the proceedings formalities of Section 294, Cr.P.C. are to be observed. For this purpose, it will be useful to reproduce Section 294, Cr. P.C. which reads as under: "294.-No formal proof of certain documents.-(I) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government. (3) Where the genineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed : Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved." 7. In this section the legislature has not put any limitation as to at what stage the provisions of Section 294. Cr. P. C. are to be flowed. In para 3 of Section 294. Cr. P. C. it has been clearly mentioned that the documents may be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial, other proceedings under this code. When the legislature has provided in this section that once the document is admitted. it can be used in any proceedings besides the enquiry and trial, it is clear that when the document so admitted is to be used at the stage of enquiry or trial. then formalities of Section 294, Cr. P. C. have to be observed before initiation of any enquiry or trial. If the documents are admitted before framing of the charge, they become the evidence not only for the purpose of trial but with regard to the framing of the charge also. Because under S. 227. Cr. then formalities of Section 294, Cr. P. C. have to be observed before initiation of any enquiry or trial. If the documents are admitted before framing of the charge, they become the evidence not only for the purpose of trial but with regard to the framing of the charge also. Because under S. 227. Cr. P C. before an accused can be discharged, the magistrate is hound to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and also the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf. While interpreting Sec 227. Cr. P. C. the learned Sessions Judge observed that only those documents are to be considered at this stage or (to frame charge or not to frame the charge) which are filed by the prosecution. But, whether such of the documents which are submitted by the prosecution and summoned by the court at the request of the accused m y be considered at the stage of enquiry or trial, is a matter of importance. As per the interpretation of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge these documents cannot be considered. I am afraid to accept this interpretation of the lower court, because under Section 294, Cr. P. C. both the prosecution and the accused are to be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents. If a document is admitted then it requires no proof. because it is a fundamental principle of the Evidence Act that admitted facts need not be proved. Moreover, in sub-sec. (3) of Section 294, Cr. P. C. it has been specifically provided that when the genuineness of any document is not disputed then such a document may be read in evidence in any enquiry or trial. If the formalities of Section 294. Cr. P. C. are not observed at the initial stage, then this situation may arise that a particular document which has been subsequently admitted by any of the parties but not admitted at the initial stage, then evidence can be given for that document and in recording the evidence a lot of time can be spent. While providing the provision-, of Section 294, Cr. While providing the provision-, of Section 294, Cr. P. C. it may be the intention of the legislature that valuable time of the court should not be wasted in a case where genuineness of the document is admitted Therefore, the court should be too cautious in getting the admission or denial by the prosecution or the accused at the initial stage, so that unnecessary evidence cannot be led by the parties so as to avoid the protracted trial and to minimise the harassment to the rival parties. It is thus clear that such document can be used e' en at the time of hearing the argument of framing charges and at this stage the accused can claim for his discharge on the basis of document genuineness of which has been admitted by the prosecution. I am of the opinion that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has wrongly interpreted S. 227, Cr. P. C. In this section it has nowhere been mentioned that the documents submitted by the prosecution only will be considered and not those submitted by the accused or summoned at the request of the accused. This section clearly shows that the documents submitted therewith will be considered and such documents cannot be restricted only to the prosecution. When there is a provision for submission of documents directly or with the help of the court by the accused, then naturally the accused is entitled to get the genuineness of the documents admitted or denied by the prosecution for using them in his arguments at the time of framing the charges. I do not agree with this interpretation of the learned trial court that the documents can only be got admitted after framing of the charges. As observed above, in that situation unwarranted or unnecessary evidence may come on record. Under Section 294, Cr. P.C. it has been made obligatory for the courts making enquiry or trial in a criminal case to call upon the parties to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents submitted, as is clear by the wordings of sub-sec. (1) of S. 294, Criminal Procedure Code. Under Section 294, Cr. P.C. it has been made obligatory for the courts making enquiry or trial in a criminal case to call upon the parties to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents submitted, as is clear by the wordings of sub-sec. (1) of S. 294, Criminal Procedure Code. I am of the view that because of the impugned order there is every possibility of recording unnecessary evidenee or it may amount to denying the accused a right to plead for their discharge on the basis of those documents which have been summoned at the request of the accused, so compliance of S. 294, Cr.P.C. is necessary, and because of there reasons I feel that inherent powers as provided under S. 482, Cr.P.C. should be exercised, and as such the order dated 9-11-81 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions-Judge deserves to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, this miscellaneous application is accepted and the order dated 9-11-81 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is set aside. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge is directed to call upon the prosecution or the accused to admit or deny the genuineness of all the documents which are on record.Application accepted. *******