JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Heard Shri S.A. Mohta, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K.Pathan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant/State. 3. By the present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant is challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manora, dated 15.11.2017 in Regular Criminal Case No. 30/2009 (State v. Ashok Kumar and others), by which the learned Magistrate allowed the application (Exh. 99) filed on behalf of the prosecution, thereby granting permission to the prosecution to file documents on record. 4. Mr. Mohta, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the application (Exh. 99) was filed on 15.11.2017 by the prosecution after examination of ten prosecution witnesses. He submitted that the impugned order shows that it sans any reason as to why the learned magistrate is granting the application and permitting the prosecution to file documents on record. 5. The present proceedings under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be entertained in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 153 in the case of Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam. Perusal of the said reported judgment of the Ho'ble Apex Court shows that the order impugned is not an interlocutory order and therefore, the revision does not lie. At this stage, this Court is not expressing its view as to whether it was out of the province of the prosecution to file the application seeking permission to file documents on record after adducing the evidence of ten prosecution witnesses. Further, the Court is also not giving its verdict in respect of the jurisdiction of the learned trial Judge either to allow or reject the application. 6. The reasons are the mirror as to what is the thinking process of the adjudicating authority when a particular issue is taken up before such an adjudicating authority, whether it is Court or any other authority invested with the powers of the Court. 7. When application (Exh. 99) for permission to file documents on record was filed, it was expected from the learned Magistrate to decide the said application on its own merits by supplementing reasons either in favour of the prosecution or against the prosecution. 7. When application (Exh. 99) for permission to file documents on record was filed, it was expected from the learned Magistrate to decide the said application on its own merits by supplementing reasons either in favour of the prosecution or against the prosecution. Surely, it was not expected from the learned Magistrate to decide the application by a cryptic one line order that permission to file the documents is granted. If such type of orders are passed, the litigants are at loss to understand as to why the application filed by the adversary is considered favourably by the Court below. 8. (i) Consequently, the order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manora in Regular Criminal Case No. 30/2009 (State v. Ashokkumar) below application (Exh. 99), is hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) The learned Magistrate is directed to consider the application (Exh. 99) filed by the prosecution afresh by giving opportunity of hearing to both, prosecution as well as the present applicant and other accused persons, and shall decide the said application by a reasoned order. (iii) The learned Magistrate is directed to decide the application (Exh. 99) within a period of one month from today. All the parties are directed to extend full cooperation to the learned Magistrate for deciding the application (Exh. 99). 9. With these observations, the criminal application (APL) is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.