JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25-8-92, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application dated 4-10-91, moved by the A.P.P. and admitted certain documents in evidence which were produced by the prosecution. 2. A charge-sheet under Section 498-A I.P.C. was submitted against the accused by the Station House Officer, Police Station,. Kalindri (district Sirohi) in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi. The accused was summoned. Before the charges could be framed, an application under Section 294 Cr.P.C. was moved by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for admitting in evidence a letter dated 4-8-88 alleged to have been written by the accused, along with an envelope in which this letter was sent by the accused. It was averred in the application that though this letter and the envelope were produced by the complainant at the time of lodging the First Information Report but that could not be produced along with the charge-sheet and, therefore, they may be taken on record. This application was opposed by the accused-petitioners but the learned Magistrate, vide its order dated 25-8-92, allowed the application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor and admitted the documents in evidence. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under Section 294 Cr.P.C. only those documents can be taken on record which do not require any formal proof and the letter dated 4-8-88, and theenvelope containing this letter, which have been taken on record, do not fall within this category and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was not justified in taking these documents on record. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance over : Ganpat Raoji Suryavanshi v. The State of Maharashtra, 1980 Cr.L.J. 853 and Om Prakash Agrawal v. The State of Rajasthan, 1983 RLW 298 . The learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, have supported the order passed by the Court below and submitted that the documents, whose genuineness is not in dispute, can be read in evidence and the learned lower Court has not committed any illegality in taking these documents on record. The learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, have supported the order passed by the Court below and submitted that the documents, whose genuineness is not in dispute, can be read in evidence and the learned lower Court has not committed any illegality in taking these documents on record. Their further contention is that even otherwise, under Sub-clause (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer can produce additional charge-sheet or the documents which could not be produced by him along with the charge-sheet and, therefore, the order, passed by the Court below, does not requiie any interference. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance over : Alarakh v. The State of Rajasthan, 1986 Cr.L.J. 1794 . 4. I have considered the submissions made by provides that where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence without any proof of the signatures of the person to whom it purports to be signed. Section 294 Cr.P.C. intends to dispense with the formal proof of certain documents, the genuineness of which is not disputed. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and to admit or deny the genuineness of any of such documents filed by the opposite party. However, a discretion has been given to the Court that it may require the genuineness of such document to be proved. The provision has been enacted with a view to dispense with the avoidable waste of time in proving such document the genuineness of which is not disputed and to facilitate in the removal of obstruction in the speedy trial. The accused, under this provision, can waive his right and save time of the Court which is taken in.proving such document. The document in question is a letter alleged to have been written by the accused to the complainant demanding dowry and the other document is the envelope carrying this letter and certainly Section 294 Cr.P.C. does cover such type of letters alleged to have been written by the accused as the accused can certify the genuineness of this letter by way of admitting its contents. On the basis of the admission of the accused, the proof of such letter can be dispensed with by resorting to the provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C. The Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of O.P. Agrawal v. The State of Rajasthan, 1988 RLW 291 . is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as the question in issue in the present case is different from that in O.P. Agrawal's case. In O.P. Agrawal's case, the question was : whether the accused can be forced to admit the genuineness of the document produced by the prosecution while in the present case the controversy is : whether the document can be taken in evidence or not? So far as the Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Ganpat Raoji Suryavanshi v. The State of Maharashtra, 1980 Cr.L.J. 853 . is concerned, the view taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court was not approved by the Full Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of : Shaikh Farid Hussain Shah v. The State of Maharashtra, 1983 Cr.L.J. 487 . and it was held that Ganpat Rao'i case was not correctly decided. In the case of Alarakh v. The State of Rajasthan, 1986 Cr.L.J. 1794 . it has been held that the Court has power to accept additional document(s) in evidence not only under Section 173(8) but even otherwise before framing the charge in view of the provisions of Sections 239, 240 and 242 Cr.P.C. The Court further held that if documents can be produced before the Court even after the framing of the charge, there should be no objection for their being produced before framing the charge provided they are admissible in evidence and are relevant, because in that event it will be for the benefit of the accused and he will be able to know what are the materials against him for supporting the prosecution case and enabling the Court to frame the charge against the accused. It is the duty of the prosecution to produce, alongwith the report, all the documents on which it wants to place reliance, but if, later on, it is found that it is necessary to file additional documents which could not be produced at that time then that can be produced under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and even during the trial, the Court can call additional documents or direct the witness to produce these documents under Section 242 Cr.P.C. allegedly written by the accused and the envelope containing this letter and the order, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, does not require any interference. 5. In the result, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed *******