ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Notice to be issued to the respondents is 3. The petitioner has called in question the dispensed with. order passed by the 19th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, in C.C. No.25293/2016 dated 02.05.2018 on the application filed by the accused under Sections 63 & 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended before this Court that, an application filed by the accused under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the Court and similar application was filed changing the provision of law under Sections 63 & 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Magistrate ignoring his earlier order has passed the said order allowing the application and permitting the accused to mark the disputed document. Therefore, the said order is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. On careful perusal of the above said submissions made by the learned counsel and the order passed by the learned Magistrate, it is clear that, on 06.10.2017, the learned Magistrate has passed an order under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. rejecting the application of the accused. The contents of the said application was recorded by the learned Judge in the order itself, which shows that, the accused in the said case has filed an application stating that he has produced the office copy of Ex.P9 which is the colour Xerox copy retained by him in his office. He made an application under Section 294 Cr.P.C., for a direction to the complainant to admit the contents or deny the contents of the said application. It appears the objections have been filed by the complainant to the said application, wherein he has not admitted the genuineness of the document produced by the accused. But, it is submitted that the complainant himself has produced the original of the document as per Ex.P9. Therefore, the document produced by the accused has not been admitted by the complainant. In the cross-examination also he has not admitted the genuineness of the said document. Therefore, it is observed by the trial Judge that the accused has to prove the genuineness of the document in accordance with law. Accordingly, the said application was dismissed for limited purpose of calling upon the complainant to admit the genuineness of the said document. 6. In the cross-examination also he has not admitted the genuineness of the said document. Therefore, it is observed by the trial Judge that the accused has to prove the genuineness of the document in accordance with law. Accordingly, the said application was dismissed for limited purpose of calling upon the complainant to admit the genuineness of the said document. 6. Later, it appears the accused in order to prove the genuineness of the said document in accordance with law, has filed another application under Sections 63 & 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission of the court to mark that document as his defence document. The said application was contested by the complainant. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Judge has allowed the said application and permitted the accused to mark the said document. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that, when the original document-Ex.P9 is already produced by the complainant and marked, there is no necessity to the accused to lead any secondary evidence with regard to the said document. Of course the said argument is correct, the accused need not to have filed an application under Sections 63 & 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, because the foundation has already been laid and the complainant has already produced the original of the said document. Simply the accused would have sought for marking the said document. However, the court has considered the above said aspect in detail and it has come to the conclusion that, once the document which is produced by the accused is denied and the contents of that document have not been admitted by the complainant, though it is alleged to be the Colour Xerox copy of the original of Ex,P9, but it operates as an independent document so far as the accused is concerned, because according to the accused, after retaining of the said Colour Xerox copy, the original has been modified or manipulated by the complainant. The accused wants to question the genuineness of Ex.P9 in the light of the modification or alteration made by the complainant compared to the Xerox copy of Ex.P9. The accused wants to question the genuineness of Ex.P9 in the light of the modification or alteration made by the complainant compared to the Xerox copy of Ex.P9. Whether the document produced by the accused is true and correct Xerox copy of original document-Ex.P9 or whether any modification or alteration has been made either by the complainant or by the accused, has to be considered by the court only if both the documents are available for appreciation by the Court. Therefore, it is just and necessary for the court to provide an opportunity to both the parties to establish their cases. When the accused has specifically stated that there was manipulation of Ex.P9 and in the light of the same, he wants to establish genuineness of the said document and as well as genuineness of the document produced by him, in my opinion, an opportunity is required to be granted to both the parties. It is also a settled principle of law that, mere marking of a document cannot be said to be the proof of said document. The said document has to be proved in accordance with law and the same has to be appreciated in order to ascertain the genuineness of the said document with other materials available on record. In that context, both the parties would get ample opportunity to counter those documents as well to submit their arguments with reference to the evidence already recorded by the court. Therefore, in the above circumstances, I do not find any strong reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. In view of disposal of this case, the application-IA No.1/2018 filed for stay, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands disposed of.