R/SCR.A/4282/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/07/202513 pt IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4282 of 2025 ========================================================== HIMANSHU CHANDULAL SHAH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. ROHAN N MAJMUDAR(14000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ISHAN H RAJDEV(11634) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 16/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. By way of this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 03.02.2025 passed in Criminal Case No.22473 of 2020 below Exhibit49 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat. 2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 3. It appears from the record that the grievance raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate has passed the order below Exhibit 49 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the offence is alleged to have been committed on 12.02.2013, and although closing pursis was filed on 26.06.2023, the complainant straightaway produced certain documents on 01.12.2023 below Exhibit 25 before the learned Magistrate. In total, 13 documents were produced on 01.12.2023 by the complainant, which were marked as Exhibits 25 to 39, without granting any opportunity to the petitioner to cross- examine the witness or to offer any explanation in respect of the said documents. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner R/SCR.A/4282/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/07/202513 pt has approached this Court. 4. It is an admitted position that the said documents were straightaway exhibited. It is needless to state that merely exhibiting documents does not amount to a final verdict; the parties are required to prove the contents of the documents, and the Court is duty-bound to consider their relevancy and admissibility. Mere marking of a document as an exhibit cannot be equated with the proof of the document. The document has to be proved in accordance with law and its genuineness has to be appreciated along with other material available on record. In that context, both parties will get ample opportunity to counter such documents and to advance their arguments with reference to the evidence already recorded by the Court. The document is required to be produced and proved according to law to be treated as evidence. Whether such evidence is relevant, irrelevant, admissible, or inadmissible is a matter to be decided during trial. In this regard, reference may be made to Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : AIR 2014 SC 1400, and Birendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, (2003) 8 SCC 745 : AIR 2004 SC 175, and Alamelu v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, (2011) 2 SCC 385 : AIR 2011 SC 715. 5. Further, it is submitted that the learned trial Court will consider the said documents at the stage of final arguments. However, upon perusal of the record, it appears that at the time of final arguments, the objections regarding the admissibility of the documents and the production of the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are to be decided after hearing the parties. However, no opportunity of being heard has been R/SCR.A/4282/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/07/202513 pt extended to the petitioner at that stage. As the learned trial Court has observed that the admissibility of documents and the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act will be considered at the stage of final arguments, but no opportunity has been given to the petitioner to raise objections or to advance arguments, the petitioner deserves to be granted relief. 6. In view of the above, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat, is directed to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to raise all available defences and objections regarding the admissibility and relevance of the documents produced and marked as Exhibits 25 to 39 and to consider the same independently on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in this order. The learned trial Court is further directed to decide the matter expeditiously and preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 7. With the above directions, the present application stands disposed of accordingly. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/07/2025 19:08:50