JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - In course of trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, learned Associate Public Prosecutor for the prosecution filed an application to call for (i) X-Ray plate, (ii) X-Ray report, (iii) Admission register, (iv) Out-door ticket, (iv) Bed head ticket, (vi) Blood donation ticket and (vii) Discharge certificate from Basta Primary Health Centre and from Balasore District Headquarters hospital and to summon Dr. P. Sahu (P.W. 7) for further examination in court with regard to these documents. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge having allowed the prayer this revision application has been filed. 2. Petitioners are being prosecuted on police report. In such a case before submission of charge sheet, police makes investigation. In course of investigation statements of persons are recorded and documents and material objects are seized. While submitting the report to the Magistrate u/s 170 Code of Criminal Procedure the police officer is to send all tile documents or relevant extracts thereof as required u/s 173(5) Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused is to be furnished with copies of the same as provided in Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure subject to exception. Thereafter, an offence exclusively triable by a court of session is committed to it u/s 209 Code of Criminal Procedure Magistrate thereupon is to send the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence. 3. Mr. P. Kar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the provisions are exhaustive and in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 a new provision has been made u/s 173(8) that after submitting a report u/s 173(2) the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station is not precluded to make further investigation and can submit a further report to the Magistrate as provided in the earlier Sub-sections. In the present case, the Officer-In-charge not having submitted a further report, there is no scope to call for the documents by the court of session According to Mr. Kar, this is not envisaged by the procedure laid down in the Code and the order of the learned Judge is without jurisdiction. Assuming that learned Sessions Judge has no independent power to call for documents, even the learned Magistrate has no such power unless the Officer-In-charge submits them u/s 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure. Kar, this is not envisaged by the procedure laid down in the Code and the order of the learned Judge is without jurisdiction. Assuming that learned Sessions Judge has no independent power to call for documents, even the learned Magistrate has no such power unless the Officer-In-charge submits them u/s 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure. When the Public Prosecutor is satisfied that some documents are wanting which would be material for the trial of the accused is to pray for adjournment and on his advice, the Investigating Officer is to make further investigation, seize the documents and produce the same before the learned Magistrate, who shall give copies to the accused u/s 207 Code of Criminal Procedure and shall forward those documents to the court of session u/s 209 Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no bar for such a procedure being adopted. If the learned Sessions Judge calls for the documents, the scope of compliance with Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure to give copies is not available which may prejudice the accused In such circumstances, which is not a regular phenomenon in the trial in court of session, the Public Prosecutor can be directed to furnish copies to the accused on receipt of such documents. If the accused is not prejudiced, the irregularity in the procedure cannot affect the trial. 4. Mr. Kar relied upon the decision reported in Arjuna Kumar Pujhari Vs. State of Orissa, and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge having no power to receive a document directly from the Investigating Officer, cannot calf for the same. In the said decision it has been clearly laid down that a narrow interpretation of Section 173 ought not to be given and the further report is to be submitted to the Magistrate who shall forward the same to the Court of Session to which the accused is committed. Patna decision short noted in 1977 Cri.L.J. (NOC) 236 (State of Bihar v. N. Nagmani) taking a view that the report cannot be received was dissented from and the decision of Karnatak High Court reported in ILR (1979) 2 Kar 253 (G.E. Narayana v. State of Karnataka) was relied upon. The view I am taking is to further the decision reported in 66 (1938) C.L.T. 476 (supra) and not inconsistent with it. 5. The view I am taking is to further the decision reported in 66 (1938) C.L.T. 476 (supra) and not inconsistent with it. 5. There can be no dispute that the Court of Session cannot receive a document from the Investigating Officer which has not been sent by the learned Magistrate. Investigating agencies should not be encouraged to contravene the formalities prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure or to have defective investigation which would be rectified by the Public Prosecutor in the Court of Session. However, procedure is handmaid of justice If there is no bar to receive a document by the Court of Session when sent by the Magistrate u/s 207 Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 173(8) thereof rest would be only a matter of formality for adherence to the procedure which would only delay the trial against the public policy of expeditious disposal. Procedure is only handmaid of justice. If the learned Sessions Judge would have adjourned the trial to give chance to the prosecution to bring it to record following Sections 173(8) and 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, there was no scope for interference since that would have been the correct procedure unless it would have been brought to notice of the Court that the accused was prejudiced by the order. Where, however, some procedural formalities have been over looked, there is no scope for interference with the order subject to some directions to be given which would protect the interest of the accused. 6. Learned Sessions Judge proposed to exercise his power u/s 311 Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Kar submitted that Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure, authorises the Court to summon witnesses to be examined. It does not authorise to call for a document. Mr. Kar is correct to the extent that in exercise of power u/s 311 Code of Criminal Procedure, simply a document cannot be called for. Court can, however, summon a person to produce a document in his custody and prove the same as a witness. However, language of the Section is so wide that there should be great restraint to exercise the power thereunder. Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure is not intended to fill up the laches in the investigation. Therefore, Court is to record reasons in support of exercise of such power. However, language of the Section is so wide that there should be great restraint to exercise the power thereunder. Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure is not intended to fill up the laches in the investigation. Therefore, Court is to record reasons in support of exercise of such power. Where the power is exercised on the basis of the prayer of the Public Prosecutor, learned trial Judge ought to have also recorded how adjournment of the trial to give scope to the Officer-In-charge to further investigate into the matter would not be essential for a just decision of the case, so that the power u/s 311 would be required to be exercised in such a case. Such reason may not be necessary for recalling P.W. 7 to be further examined to explain documents. 7. u/s 207 Code of Criminal Procedure legislative intention is that the accused should be furnished with the copies of the documents or extract thereof so that he can properly defend himself and is not taken unaware. I am inclined to hold that except the X-Ray Plate, copies of other documents should be furnished to the accused persons. Learned Associate Public Prosecutor shall take steps for furnishing such copies after they are received in Court. On supply of the copies or relevant extracts of the documents, P.W. 7 shall be summoned to be further examined. This would mitigate the grievance of the accused persons and they cannot thereafter complain of any prejudice since they could not have made such a complaint in case those documents would have been sent at the stage of commitment u/s 209 Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. With the observation and direction, I dispose of the Criminal revision.