Judgment : ( 1 ) THE interesting question of law that arises for consideration is as follows:-Whether the photos taken subsequent to the filing of the private complaint for the offences under Sections 497 and 498, IPC would be admissible in the course of the said proceedings to establish the subsequent conduct of the accused, though it is not relevant to the fact in issue? ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the husband. It is alleged that the respondent/accused ranijiwala enticed away the petitioners wife Nafisa on 12-4-1995 from Madras and lived in adultery with her at Hotel Godavari, Bijapur, Karnataka till 17-4-1995. Again, on 4-6-1995 the respondent came to Madras and enticed her and took away. With reference to these incidents, the petitioner husband filed the private complaint on 7-8-1995. ( 3 ) THE learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, took the case in c. C. No. 5881/1995 on file on 29-8-1995 in respect of the offences under sections 497 and 498, IPC. The process was issued. The petitioner took the summons intended for service upon the accused to Mumbai and got the same served upon him on 14-12-1995 through the Police Constable attached to the jurisdiction of Police Station at Mumbai. The petitioner who accompanied the constable had taken with him a camera. The Police Constable served the summons on the accused/respondent. At that time, the wife of the petitioner was sitting in the cot. The accused clothed in a banian and a lungi received the summons from the Police Constable. The petitioner took photographs. ( 4 ) IN pursuance of the summons, the accused/respondents appeared before the trial Court. After the copy of the complaint was furnished the enquiry was commenced. On 30-10-1996 P. W. I, the petitioner was examined in chief. It continued on 26-2-1997. At the conclusion of the chief examination, the petitioner sought to mark the three photographs referred to above as prosecution exhibits. This was objected to by the accused. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application in Crl. M. P. No. 1541 of 1997 before the trial Court under Section 244, Cr. P. C. requesting to permit the petitioner to file three photographs taken by him at Mumbai on 14-12-1995 and also to permit him to give evidence in relation thereto. The respondent herein filed a counter to the said petition. M. P. No. 1541 of 1997 before the trial Court under Section 244, Cr. P. C. requesting to permit the petitioner to file three photographs taken by him at Mumbai on 14-12-1995 and also to permit him to give evidence in relation thereto. The respondent herein filed a counter to the said petition. After hearing the parties, the learned XVIII Metropolitan magistrate, Saidapet passed orders on 16-6-1997 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. It is in the backdrop of the above facts, the petitioner has filed the above revision before this Court. ( 5 ) MR. Raghunathan, the Counsel for the petitioner would putforth the following submissions: "the above comments, namely, three photographs are admissible under section 11 of the evidence Act. The factum of the accused having been seen in the company of the petitioners wife on 14-12-1995, subsequent to the private complaint might not have been relevant by itself, but it certainly makes the existence of the fact in issue, viz. , the charge of adultery highly probable. Section 8 of the Evidence Act also would in a way be helpful, to make those documents admissible, because the conduct of any party, which is an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto. ( 6 ) ARGUING contra, Mr. A. J. Jawad, the Counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit the following: "the documents sought to be filed by the petitioner could not be admitted in evidence either under Section 8 or under section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, since the alleged photographs neither constitute res gestae nor are they related to the alleged facts in issue either by proximity of time or place as to constitute part of the same transaction. The petitioner can let in evidence of such facts as it would go to prove his allegation that the respondent enticed his wife on 12-4-1995 and 4-6-1995 and committed adultery with her and of nothing else. Even according to the petitioner, the alleged photographs were taken on 14-12-1995. Therefore, this would not go to prove the offences alleged to have been committed on 12-4-1995 and 4-6-1995. Even according to the petitioner, the alleged photographs were taken on 14-12-1995. Therefore, this would not go to prove the offences alleged to have been committed on 12-4-1995 and 4-6-1995. Thus, the evidence of the nature, now sought to be let in by the petitioner, is not at all relevant to the facts in issue. The expression "highly probable or improbable" occurring in Section 11 is of very great importance as it indicates that the connection between the fact in issue or the relevant fact and the collateral facts sought to be proved must be so immediate as to render the coexistence of the two highly probable. The photographs, therefore alleged to have been taken on 14-12-1995 long subsequent to the filing of the complaint, have no relevance to the facts in issue nor do they render the esistence of the facts in issue or relevant facts highly probable". ( 7 ) IN the light of the above submissions made by the respective sides, the question mentioned above has arisen for consideration. ( 8 ) BEFORE adverting to the merits of the rival contentions, let me at the threshold refer Section 5 of the Evidence Act. Section 5 reads thus: "evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others". ( 9 ) BY virtue of Section 5, the evidence, when it relates to a judicial proceeding means an evidence through the production of documents or through a witness stating about the fact in issue or relevant facts before the Court. The Court, therefore, must confine itself strictly to the provisions of the Evidence Act and come to a conclusion as to the relevancy of a fact on the interpretation of the relevant provision of the act. The reading of the above section would make it clear that the evidence excluded by statute, as inadmissible, should not be admitted merely because it may be essential for knowing the subsequent development, thus, Section 5 has limited the meaning of the word evidence and in so far as it relates to Courts, it means only admissible evidence. The scope of the section would postulate that the Evidence Act prohibits the employment of any kind of evidence not specifically authorised by the Act itself. The scope of the section would postulate that the Evidence Act prohibits the employment of any kind of evidence not specifically authorised by the Act itself. Therefore, the principle of exclusion adopted by the Evidence Act shall be applied so as to exclude the matters other than mentioned in the relevant sections of the Act. It is also settled law that it is the duty of the Court to decide the question of adrnissibility of documents objected to by a party, when the objection is raised. The Court ought not to admit them tentatively and reserve the question for argument at the final stage. So far as criminal cases are concerned, the opening for the prosecution ought to be confined to matters which are necessary to enable the Court to follow the evidence when it is brought before it. In the light of the object of the above section, the Court has to necessarily decide about the issue regarding the adrnissibility of the documents even during the course of trial itself. In such a situation, as admitted by both the Counsel, the lower Court has decided the issue one way or the other at the appropriate stage. It is in this context, this Court has been approached to decide about the legality and propriety of the impugned order passed by the trial Court. ( 10 ) MR. Raghunathan while elaborating his arguments, would vehemently contend that since the petitioner has mentioned in para 15 of the complaint that the respondent was living in adultery with the wife of the petitioner after he enticed her away from the petitioners residence on 4-6-1995, the marking of the said photographs taken on 14-12-1995, would go a long way to establish the continuous course of the conduct of the parties as the offence alleged in the complaint is of living in adultery. He further contended that the subsequent conduct on the part of the respondent by living with the wife of the petitioner would be admissible under Sections 8 and 11 of the Evidence Act, though the said act would not by itself be a relevant fact since it makes the existence of fact in issue, namely, the charge of adultery highly probable. He would with very great vehemence submit with the tinge of humility that even after the filing of the complaint, subsequent evidence, if available, can be produced before Court, as per the guidelines given in the decision rendered by this Court by its order in Crl. O. P. Nos. 780 and 781 of 1997 dated 11-2-1997. The relevant observation in the said decision is this:- "taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances placed before me, as it is stated that the new facts have come to be known to the respondent only subsequent to 29-1-1997, that is, subsequent to the filing of the final report, it cannot be stated that the materials for fresh investigation, were available to the respondent before the final report was filed. Therefore, when the fresh investigation is going on, the reason for dismissing the previous applications filed by these petitioners, namely, the tampering of the investigation, is still there. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is change of circumstance now". This is a case where after the filing of the charge-sheet, the prosecution filed a petition before the trial Court seeking permission for the fresh investigation. So, during the course of fresh investigation some materials were collected for the filing of the report under Section 178 (8), Cr. P. C. When an argument in an application for bail was advanced by the accused on the ground that already final report is filed, it was opposed by the prosecution that the previous application was dismissed on the ground of the pendency of the investigation and that though final report has been filed, the fresh investigation has commenced under Section 173 (8), Cr. P. C. after getting permission from the court and that therefore there was no change of circumstances to grant bail. Therefore, I am not able to see any valid reason to hold that the decision cited above by the Counsel for the petitioner would be applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 11 ) IN the case on hand, fresh material had been collected by the complainant by taking three photographs of the accused, while serving summons on him by the Police Constable in his room, where the wife of the petitioner/complainant, was also present. ( 11 ) IN the case on hand, fresh material had been collected by the complainant by taking three photographs of the accused, while serving summons on him by the Police Constable in his room, where the wife of the petitioner/complainant, was also present. The question is whether those documents would be admissible either under Section 8 or 11 of the Evidence Act, especially when it is objected to by the accused on the ground that those documents would have no relevance nor would relate to the fact in issue and the same is not germane to the accusation with reference to the incidents that tookplace on12-4-1995 and 4-6-1995. ( 12 ) WE are not concerned with the question in the instant case as to whether materials subsequently collected could be admitted as evidence in Court. But the short question is whether the materials sought to be produced before the court collected after the complaint would decide the fact in issue, so as to enable the Court to admit them in evidence under Section 5 of the Evidence Act? ( 13 ) BEFORE proceeding further, let me consider the submission putforth by the Counsel for the respondent. His main contention is that the photographs allegedly taken by the petitioner on 14-12-1995 would be irrelevant, having no nexus whatsoever to the fact in issue and the fact of living in adultery as mentioned in paragraph 15 of the complaint is not the subject-matter of the accusation, since living in adultery is not an offence either under Section 497 or 498, IPC and that therefore, the act of having seen the accused in the company of the wife of the petitioner is altogether diffrent, since the offence of adultery alleged to have been committed on 12-4-1995 and 4-6-1995 is not a continuing offence. He would further contend that the photographs alleged to have been taken on 14-12-1995 would not reflect the subsequent conduct as it is not directly connected to the fact in issue or relevant fact. He would further contend that the photographs alleged to have been taken on 14-12-1995 would not reflect the subsequent conduct as it is not directly connected to the fact in issue or relevant fact. To substantiate his contentions, he cited the following authorities: ( 14 ) IN Shankar Tulshiran, In Re, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has held as follows:- "it, therefore, follows that every act of sexual intercourse amounts to an offence of adultery and that if a person has several sexual intercourses with a woman it cannot be said that the offence is a continuing offence". ( 15 ) IN Queen Empress vs. Abdullah, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High court has observed thus:-"the conduct made relevant by Section 8 is conduct which is directly and immediately influenced by a fact in issue or relevant fact, and it does not include actions resulting from some intermediate cause, such as questions or suggestions by other persons". ( 16 ) IN Bhuriya vs. Ram Kali, while referring about Section 11 of the Evidence act, the following observation has been made by the Punjab and Haryana High court:- "the words highly probable in Clause (2) of Section 11 are of great importance. Only such facts are made admissible by this clause as would carry great weight with the Court in reaching a conclusion either way with regard to existence or non-existence of a fact in issue or relevant fact. It is not mere reasonable probability that is contemplated; on the other hand a high degree thereof is envisaged". ( 17 ) LET me now enter into the arena of discussion to decide the questions raised above. It is not in dispute that the Court can admit the evidence under section 5 of the Evidence Act only when it relates to the fact in issue or the other facts which are relevant. Section 8 of the Evidence Act provides thus:- "any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. Section 8 of the Evidence Act provides thus:- "any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto". Under this section, the conduct of the accused whether it was previous or subsequent thereto, which is an offence and is the subject of any proceeding would be relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The alleged subsequent conduct as put forward by the petitioner is the presence of the wife of the petitioner in the room occupied by the respondent, while he received summons from the Police Constable issued by the trial Court, after taking cognizance of the private complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 497 and 498, IPC. According to the private complaint, the alleged accusation constituting the offence under Sections 497 and 498, IPC is that between 12-4-1995 and 17-4-1995 the respondent lived in adultery with the wife of the petitioner at Bijapur in Karnaataka and on the second occasion on 4-6-1995 the respondent took her away by way of enticement and lived in adultery. Section 497, IPC provides for the punishment of adultery. Section 498, IPC envisages the punishment for enticing or taking away or detaining a married woman with criminal intent. The term adultery is defined in Section 497, IPC as the person having sexual intercourse with another mans wife without his consent. In a case of adultery, sexual intercourse must be proved. The word living in adultery as stated in Section 13 (1) of the hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has a different and wider meaning than the term adultery in the section. In a case of adultery, sexual intercourse must be proved. The word living in adultery as stated in Section 13 (1) of the hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has a different and wider meaning than the term adultery in the section. ( 18 ) THE reading of the complaint would show the accusation that the respondent/accused stayed along with the wife of the petitioner between 3-4-1995 and 17-4-1995 and committed adultery in a lodge in Karnataka, would constitute the offence under Section 497, IPC. As far as accusation relating to the taking away of the wife, of the petitioner on 4-6-1995, it would attract section 498, IPC. Therefore, the act of adultery as alleged in the complaint attracting the ingredients of Section 497, IPC was between 13-4-1995 and 17-4-1995. The act of enticing away the petitioners wife to have illicit intercourse was committed on 4-6-1995. Therefore, once he enticed away on the said date with criminal intent, the offence under Section 498 of IPC is complete. Neither Section 497 nor 498, IPC would refer about the living in adultery. Thus, as indicated earlier, living in adultery may be a subject-matter in the matrimonial proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P. C. So, once the offence is complete, even according to the complaint, on the above referred to facts, the alleged living in adultery on 14-12-1995 may not, in my view, constitute the subsequent conduct relating to the facts in issue and as such it cannot come under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. ( 19 ) THEN coming to the Section 11 of the Evidence Act, Section 11 provides thus:- "facts not otherwise relevant are relevant-(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; (2) if by themselves or in connection or with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable". According to the petitioners Counsel this fact is relevant, since the conduct referred to above makes the existence of the fact in issue and the same is relevant, as it is highly probable. According to the petitioners Counsel this fact is relevant, since the conduct referred to above makes the existence of the fact in issue and the same is relevant, as it is highly probable. On going through the complaint and section 11 of the Evidence Act, I am of the view that though Section 11 is expressed in a very wide language, it does not mean that each and every fact, however remote it may be, merely by saying, that it has a bearing on the fact in issue or relevant fact would be admissible because the section does not admit of any collateral facts, which have practically no connection with the main facts. ( 20 ) IT is held by this Court on so many occasions that the words "highly probable" are of great importance and the facts sought to be proved must be so closely connected with the fact in issue or the relevant fact that a Court will not be in a position to determine it without taking them into consideration. The expression "highly probable" indicates that the connection between that facts in issue and the collateral facts sought to be proved, must be immediate as to render the co-existence of the two highly probable. Facts having merely probative force, even assuming that it is so, cannot be offered when it is not admissible in evidence under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. ( 21 ) THE offences alleged against the accused in the complaint stand on an independent footing and only those facts which are relevant to the specific events alleged in the complaint can be proved in this case. In the absence of material that the facts are quite relevant to the main issue, which are so closely connected with each other that they form part of the same transaction, it cannot be stated that the above documents sought to be filed could be admitted in evidence. ( 22 ) IN view of the above conclusion, I am of the considered opinion that these photographs which are sought to be marked before the trial Court through p. W. 1 cannot be said to be admissible either under Section 8 or Section 11 of the evidence Act. ( 22 ) IN view of the above conclusion, I am of the considered opinion that these photographs which are sought to be marked before the trial Court through p. W. 1 cannot be said to be admissible either under Section 8 or Section 11 of the evidence Act. Therefore, in the absence of any infirmity in the impugned order warranting any such interference, I am unable to persuade myself to accept the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 23 ) IN the result, the revision is dismissed. The Registry is directed to send back the records to the Lower Court expeditiously.