JUDGMENT Arun Chandra Upadhyay, J. 1. By filing this revision application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.05.012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kamrup at Guwahati in C.R. Case No. 5535C/2008 by which the petition filed by the complainant opposite party under Section 294 Cr.P.C. 1973 was allowed. I have heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.R. Surana, learned counsel representing the respondent. 2. The facts leading to filing of this revision application, may be stated as follows: The complainant-petitioner is a duly constituted Market Committee established by the Government of Assam, in exercise of power conferred under Section 7 of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972. Complaint case bearing C.R. Case No. 5535C/2008 was filed by the petitioner Committee, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup at Guwahati, against the opposite party alleging inter-alia that the opposite party firm is dealing with specified Agricultural Produces, namely, wheat products without making payment of any cess, as required under Section 21 of the said Assam Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1972. The opposite party also engaged itself in the said illegal business, within the prescribed area, without obtaining valid license under Section 13(2) of the said Act. As alleged in the complaint, as on 9th October, 2008, around 400 packets of such wheat, belonging to the opposite party firm was seized, in presence of witnesses and hence they would be liable to pay penalty under Section 39(2) and 39(3) of the said Act Learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence and issued process for appearance of the accused/respondent. On appearance of the accused/respondent, teamed trial Court explained the particular of the offence under Section 39(2) and (3) of Assam Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1972. The said complaint case is presently pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup at Guwahati for disposal. 3. In the meantime, on the date fixed for recording evidence of the witnesses of the complainant, the accused/respondents filed an application invoking the provisions of Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, along with as many as 30 numbers of different documents, with a prayer for issuing direction to the complainant, petitioner committee to admit the said documents, before the evidence of the complainant was recorded. The petitions accordingly filed written objection to the application filed by the accused respondent under Section 294 Cr.P.C. The petitioner raised objection on the ground that the right of the accused to produce any document, would accrue to him only after un-accused enters the defence and after recording of the evidence by the complainant/prosecution. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the accused person resorting to the procedure laid down under Section 294 Cr.P.C., by producing documents in his defence even before completion of the recording of the evidence of the complainant witnesses is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint may be asked to admit or deny the documents in defence submitted in terms of Section 294 of Cr PC only by the accused after closing of the evidence of complainant's witnesses. 5. Mr. Kataki, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the decision of Apex Court reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568 State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, submitted that the right of the accused in filing the documents during the course of the Trial would accrue only after the accused entered the defence and not prior to that. In the instant case, without examination of the complainant witnesses, the accused person sought to introduce some documents by resorting to the procedure laid down under Section 294 Cr.P.C. 6. In the State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (supra), the Apex Court observed that insofar as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. Summons to produce documents in terms of provision of Section 91 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 can be invoked only at the stage of taking defence evidence. The observation of the Apex Court reads as follows: 25. .........If any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of the accused is not relevant at that stage. The observation of the Apex Court reads as follows: 25. .........If any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of the accused is not relevant at that stage. When the section refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or (sic) proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may move the court for summoning and production of a document as may be necessary at any of the stages mentioned in the section. Insofar as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who makes it, whether police or accused. If under Section 227, what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to show his innocence. Under Section 91 summons for production of document can be issued by court and under a written order an officer in charge of a police station can also direct production thereof. Section 91 does not confer any right on the accused to produce document in his possession to prove his defence. Section 91 presupposes that when the document is not produced process may be initiated to compel production thereof. 26. Reliance on behalf of the accused was placed on some observations made in the case of Om Parkash Sharma v. CBI. In that case the application filed by the accused for summoning and production of documents was rejected by the Special Judge and that order was affirmed by the High Court. Challenging those orders before this Court, reliance was placed on behalf of the accused upon Satish Mehra case 1. The contentions based on Satish Mehra case 1 have been noticed in para 4 as under: (SCC p. 682) 4. Challenging those orders before this Court, reliance was placed on behalf of the accused upon Satish Mehra case 1. The contentions based on Satish Mehra case 1 have been noticed in para 4 as under: (SCC p. 682) 4. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the stand taken before the courts below with great vehemence by inviting our attention to the decision of this Court reported in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Admn. 1 laying emphasis on the fact that the very learned Judge in the High Court has taken a different view in such matters, in the decision reported in Ashok Kaushik v. State. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, the learned ASG for the respondents not only contended that the decision (sic) upon for the appellants would not justify the claim of the appellant in this case, at this stage, but also invited, extensively our attention to the exercise undertaken by the courts below to find out the relevance, desirability and necessity of those documents as well as the need for issuing any such directions as claimed at that stage and consequently there was no justification whatsoever, to intervene by an interference at the present stage of the proceedings. 27. Insofar as Section 91 is concerned, it was rightly held that the width of the powers of that section was unlimited but there were inbuilt, inherent limitations as to the stage or point of time of its exercise, commensurate with the nature of proceedings as also the compulsion of necessity and desirability, to fulfill the task or achieve the object. Before the trial court the stage was to find out whether mere was sufficient ground for proceeding to the next stage against the accused. The application filed by the accused under Section 91 of the Code for summoning and production of document was dismissed and order was upheld by the High Court and this Court. But observations were made in para 6 to the effect that if the accused could produce any reliable material even at that stage which might totally affect even the very sustainability of the case, a refusal to look into the material so produced may result in injustice, apart from averting an exercise in futility at the expense of valuable judicial/public time, these observations are clearly obiter dicta and in any case of no consequence in view of conclusion reached by us hereinbefore. Further, the observations cannot be understood to mean that the accused has a right to produce any document at upstage of filming of charge having regard to the clear mandate of Sections 227 and 228 in Chapter 18 and Sections 239 and 240 in Chapter 19. 7. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 1987 CRI. L.J. 1335, Vinodkumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, which reads as follows: 3. Undeniably the trial of a warrant case on a police report commences when the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate. The first step to be taken by the Magistrate in this regard is to satisfy himself that the provisions of Section 207 i.e. with regard to the supply of the documents mentioned therein, have been complied with. The next step is to apply mind on the police report and the documents sent along therewith. Simultaneously, he has been given the power to examine the accused at that stage as thought necessary and then the prosecution and the accused have also the right to an opportunity of being heard. Now when an opportunity of being heard is conferred as of right on the accused, it has to be seen whether there are any regulating factors in the Code by which such opportunity is to be availed of. One such pointer is Section 294 of the Code, which is applicable to all trials inclusive of warrant case trials. It is ex facie patent that the prosecution while presenting the police report can support the same with documents and they are required to be considered at the time of the framing of charge. It does not hold to any reason that the accused cannot at that stage produce his documents. This seems to be the reason for such a provision under Section 294 of the Code subject of course to the accused's documents being genuine. And at that stage the documents sought to be introduced by the accused are required to be included in a list and the prosecutor can be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. This right is not merely conferred on the accused, but a corresponding right is also vested in the prosecution. And at that stage the documents sought to be introduced by the accused are required to be included in a list and the prosecutor can be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. This right is not merely conferred on the accused, but a corresponding right is also vested in the prosecution. Even the documents submitted along with the report under Section 173 of the Code relied upon by the prosecution can be put to the accused and he can be asked to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. This does away with the formal necessity of proving the genuineness of the document and such document can thereafter be read in evidence without proving of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. The joint effect of the aforesaid two provisions is to put at par the prosecution and the accused so far as the documentary evidence is concerned. One cannot be allowed to score over another by taking shelter in procedural wrangles and tactical gimmicks. Thus, I am of the considered view that the learned Magistrate in suggesting to postpone admission of these documents at this stage on the ground that the complainant was not before him, tended to thwart the rights of the accused to have his documents admitted at that stage so as to be considered while considering the question of charge. Thus, in the interest of justice, it becomes essential to quash his impugned order and regulate the trial by suitable directions. 8. In the case of Md. Akbar & Another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2002 Cri. L.J. 3167, Andhra Pradesh High Court while discussing the provision of Section 294 of Cr PC observed as follows: The documents produced with the petition are certified copies of Order of Civil Court, pahanies and F.I.R., which are all public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of Evidence Act. As per Sec. 76 of the Evidence Act, certified copies of public documents can be issued to any body, and as per Sec. 77 of the Evidence Act certified copies of public documents can be produced in proof thereof. Sub-Section [3] of Section 294 Cr.P.C. applies to private documents, but not to public documents since question of proof of signatures in the certified copies of public documents does not arise. Sub-Section [3] of Section 294 Cr.P.C. applies to private documents, but not to public documents since question of proof of signatures in the certified copies of public documents does not arise. If documents, which are not public documents, are sought to be relied on by the prosecution only, question of proof of those documents and signatures therein would arise. In this case since all the three documents produced by the prosecution are public documents within the meaning of Sec. 74 of the Evidence Act, strictly speaking no formal proof thereof is necessary and so they can be admitted in evidence by virtue of Sec. 77 of the Indian Evidence Act. So I find no merits in this petition. However, in the instant case, there is no indication that the documents submitted by the defence are public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of Evidence Act. Therefore, the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Md. Akbar (supra) would not apply. 9. Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel appearing for the appellant by referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (supra), submitted that the Supreme Court, while discussing the rights of an accused under Section 91 Cr PC to produce documents in his possession to prove his defence in clear terms, has observed that the provision of law pre-supposes with reference to the stage when a prayer is made for production of such documents. The width of power of that Section was unlimited, but there were inbuilt, inherent limitations as to the stage or point of time of its exercise, commensurate with the nature of proceedings as also the compulsions of necessity and desirability, to fulfill the task or achieve the object Before the trial court, the stage was to find out whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding to the next stage against the accused. 10. Apparently, in terms of the provision of Section 294 of Cr PC, if any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking the provision of Section 294 Cr PC, would not arise at any stage unless the stage is set for the accused to take his defence. 10. Apparently, in terms of the provision of Section 294 of Cr PC, if any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking the provision of Section 294 Cr PC, would not arise at any stage unless the stage is set for the accused to take his defence. The section begins with the sentence where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such documents shall be included in the list and the prosecution on the accused, as the case may be shall be, or their pleader shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such documents. 11. Though there is no indication of the stage at which the provisions of Section 294 can be resorted to, but by adopting the principle laid discussed by the Apex Court in Debendra Nath Padhi (supra), it will have to be contrived that inherent limitations as to the stage or point of time of its exercise, commensurate with the nature of proceedings as also the compulsions of necessity and desirability, to fulfill the task or achieve the object Before the trial court the stage was to find out whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding to the next stage against the accused. Therefore, before the accused enters into his defence, the complainant has to adduce evidence to establish the charge, then only question of submitting documents in defence on behalf of the accused, would arise. I would hasten to add here that the accused cannot be denied the right to introduce any documents in his defence during cross-examination of the prosecution witness. 12. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the view that the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in Vinod Kumar (supra) cannot be pressed into service in the instant case. 13. In a criminal trial, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the accusations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Both prosecution and the accused would follow the procedure prescribed under the code of Criminal Procedure 1973 during trial. Accordingly, an accused after framing of a charge or explaining of the offence alleged has to wait for the next stage to follow. Skipping the steps by jumping the procedure provided under the law, however, would not be legally permissible. Both prosecution and the accused would follow the procedure prescribed under the code of Criminal Procedure 1973 during trial. Accordingly, an accused after framing of a charge or explaining of the offence alleged has to wait for the next stage to follow. Skipping the steps by jumping the procedure provided under the law, however, would not be legally permissible. After the charge is framed or the offence alleged is explained to the accused in a criminal trial, the prosecution is called upon to establish the charge by adducing its evidence. At this stage, the defence will have every right to cross examine the prosecution witnesses in support of its defence stand. It is needless to emphasize and point out the scope of cross-examination of a witness on behalf of the accused facing the charges. On the conclusion of the recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the trial Court shall as per provision of Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, examine the accused and record his statement of defence by putting all such incriminating materials arising against the accused. At this stage of the trial, if the accused has any defence to take, he may do so by stating his defence stand to the trial Court. Though, Section 294 Cr PC do not specify the stage of the trial at which the provision can be resorted to by filing such documents on behalf of the accused for admission by the prosecution but such a stage would be apparent only the incriminating materials are established by the prosecution evidence against the accused However, there is no bar in showing and confronting and documents in defence of the accused, to the prosecution witnesses, during cross-examination. More so, allowing the defence to introduce its documents in defence for admission by the prosecution under Section 294 of Cr PC, at any stage of the proceeding, would also unnecessarily entail delay in disposal of the lis. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the accused cannot be permitted to file documents as per provision of Section 294 Cr PC in his defence, at any stage of a proceeding, calling upon the prosecution to admit such documents before adducing the prosecution evidence and without taking his own defence stand. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the accused cannot be permitted to file documents as per provision of Section 294 Cr PC in his defence, at any stage of a proceeding, calling upon the prosecution to admit such documents before adducing the prosecution evidence and without taking his own defence stand. An application under Section 294 Cr PC can be submitted on behalf of the accused on the conclusion of the recording of the prosecution evidence and after recording of the statement of the accused in terms of the provision of Section 313 Cr PC. However, it must be made clear that the accused, may, if so advised, confront the prosecution witnesses with the documents so submitted by him during trial at the appropriate time. Nevertheless, the accused after giving his own reply to the incriminating materials appearing against him, in the case by giving his own defence stand, will be at liberty to file application under Section 294 Cr PC, with a prayer for a direction by the Court to call upon the prosecution to deny or admit the genuineness of the documents in his defence. 15. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 9.5.2012 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court with a direction to consider application under Section 294 of Cr PC, filed by the respondent/opposite party, only after recording his statement under Section 313 Cr PC. However, the respondent/opposite party shall not be debarred from using those documents indicated in his application under Section 294 Cr PC, during cross-examination of the complainant's witnesses. With the above observations and directions, this revision petition is disposed of.