Judgment : This revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed at the instance of Subrata Sinha, the accused in C. 2255 of 2006 and is directed against an order passed in Criminal Revision No.8 of 2010 dated 15.2.2010 by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court at Calcutta. The petitioner/accused has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 15.2.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court in Criminal Revision No.8 of 2010 on the following grounds; a) that the order passed by the learned Court is contrary to the principles of natural justice; b) that the learned Court by passing the order impugned, in fact, allowed patent illegality and irregularity in the proceeding before the learned Trial Court; c) that the learned Trial Court was oblivious of the fact that the document which sought to be admitted into evidence was not supported by the statement of the opposite party in the petition of complaint or afterwards in course of recording evidence; d) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate also that the document in question was allowed to be marked exhibits without being proved at the time of cross examination of the defence witness which is contrary to law; e) the order being otherwise bad in law, is liable to be set aside. The opposite party M/s. Life Drug House (P) Ltd. initiated a criminal action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner. The evidence on behalf of the opposite party as complainant in the trial court was over and after examination of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. as an accused, Court allowed him to adduce evidence on his behalf. In course of cross examination as D.W.1, the opposite party brought some documents, placed those in front of him and got those documents admitted as evidence. The learned Trial Court marked those documents as Exts. B and C. The petitioner/accused being aggrieved filed a revisional application being C. R. 8 of 2010 praying for expunging of those documents as exhibits. The learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, stage of trial as well as settled principle of law, dismissed the revisional application. B and C. The petitioner/accused being aggrieved filed a revisional application being C. R. 8 of 2010 praying for expunging of those documents as exhibits. The learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, stage of trial as well as settled principle of law, dismissed the revisional application. The petitioner/accused has come up with this application challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the same on the grounds stated above. The question that comes before this Court is whether a document can be admitted into evidence and marked exhibit in the manner it has been done. Heard Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. He contends that the manner in which the documents have been marked as Exts. B and C by the learned Trial Court and approved by the learned First Revisional Court is contrary to established procedure of law as well as against the natural justice. He contends further that the documents were placed before the D.W.1 without any prior information and supplying copy and the D.W.1 was taken on surprise by production of those documents in course of his cross examination. Therefore, those documents should be expunged from the list of exhibits. Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party/State, however, contends that there is no illegality and impropriety in the order whereby the learned First Revisional Court dismissed the revisional application filed by the petitioner herein. On careful appraisal of the entire case record and orders passed therein (copy of which are made annexure), it appears that the documents which were marked as Exts. B and C were not produced by the complainant at the time he and his witnesses were examined. In course of evidence, it was brought to the notice of the Court that certain cheques were issued by the petitioner in favour of the opposite party which were also bounced and those cheques were allegedly issued by the petitioner along with the cheques which were subject matter of the case. The copy of deposition of the defence witness No.1 has been made as annexure and it appears there from that at the time the documents were marked exhibits with objection, he did not admit execution of the same by him. However, Court marked the documents as Exts. B, C, D and D/1 with objection. The copy of deposition of the defence witness No.1 has been made as annexure and it appears there from that at the time the documents were marked exhibits with objection, he did not admit execution of the same by him. However, Court marked the documents as Exts. B, C, D and D/1 with objection. Mere production and marking of documents as exhibits by Court cannot be held to be due proof of its contents. It is settled principle of law that the execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, i.e., by the evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue—if not admitted by the opposite party. When the documents so marked exhibits by the Court with objection, contents or execution of which have not been proved, Court is not under any obligation to put any evidentiary value or probative value of the same at the time of passing of the judgment. Therefore, simply marking of documents does not necessarily caused prejudice to the petitioner. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide any provision as to supply of copies to the accused of all the documents in a summons case. However, it is always fair and wise for giving copies of all the documents relied on by the prosecution/complainant to the accused. But that does not necessarily imply that in course of cross examination of a defence witness, the prosecution is prohibited to show any document for ascertaining genuinity of the same or not. Even Court can ask production of any document if required for the purpose of proper adjudication of a case. In the instant case, the documents have been marked as exhibits simplicitor. Those documents were placed before the accused in course of his cross examination for ascertaining whether those documents were actually issued by him or not. It had relations with the subject matter of the case. The learned Trial Court allowed the complainant to put the documents before the witness in order to get clarification which perhaps desired by the Court for the purpose of proper adjudication of the matter. Therefore, I do not find any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the order impugned. It had relations with the subject matter of the case. The learned Trial Court allowed the complainant to put the documents before the witness in order to get clarification which perhaps desired by the Court for the purpose of proper adjudication of the matter. Therefore, I do not find any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the order impugned. The order impugned goes to show that the petitioner was given liberty by the learned First Revisional Court to recall the prosecution witness No.1 in order to cross examine him regarding the documents so marked as Exts. B, C, D and D/1 without proving the execution and contents of the same. So, he is not prejudiced in any manner. In view of the discussions above, the revisional application stands dismissed and is disposed of. Let the trial court expedite the trial. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.