Ok, I will throw the light
But this light will be useful for next cases only, as cross of this case must have been over....Magistrate could not have given adjournment for this...
Ideally, Cross is non restrictive type, and the accused is at liberty to mark any document as defense exhibit by confronting the complainant.......for example if the complainant says that he did not receive the cash, then accused can confront him with the cash receipt and get it marked......another example complainant can say that it was not security cheque, in that case accused can confront him with some letter indicating this being a cheque.......
Please keep in mind.....the foundation for defense is developed only during cross examination.....the more prudent question is what if the cash receipt as stated above is denied by the complainant ? Mere confrontation of complainant witness with a private document during CE is not the proof of contents of this document if denied...But thats a different aspect, but the answer to your question is that any kind of relevant document can be introduced at the time of cross examination......
Real Example:
1. Complainant employee issued a signed cash receipt.
2. Complainant does not mention about this anywhere.
3. He admits the said employee, as his employee when asked tactfully.
4. But he denies the cash receipt when confronted, the same gets marked as Exh- Dx..
5. Accused calls this employee as his witness to prove the cash receipt...he can even call this employee as court witness citing a fear that he may lie being the complainant man....court may deny as court witness but cannot deny as accused witness.
[Note : Accused could successfully prove the receipt without his side giving any formal evidence, but not confronted during cross then situation could have been difficult]
Generally accused counsel traps complainant completely if he denies cash receipt.......employees when confronted with a fear of perjury babbles out everything......job of a good defense lawyer.
