1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 551 & 552 of 2008 State Vs. Yadao Kohchade Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri R. P. Joshi Adv. for State-applicant. Shri Amol Mardikar Adv. for respondent. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 26 th February, 2008. Heard. This is an application for clarification of the order passed by this Court on 11.10.2007. Respondent herein had moved Criminal Application No. 2733/07 2 contending that the prosecution should not be allowed to examine Shri Gavai the Investigating Officer in a crime arising out of an offer of bribe to Investigating Officer in another case. While deciding that application this Court had observed that the prosecution cannot examine Shri Gavai Investigating Officer in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and if at all the prosecution wants to establish that a criminal case under Prevention of Corruption Act has been filed against the accused that can be proved by filing a charge sheet. It was further ordered by this Court that the prosecution shall not examine any witness in proof of any document that is filed with charge sheet in respect of Investigation in Anti 3 Corruption case. It appears that when the investigating Officer was being examined the prosecution sought to prove the panchanama drawn in Crime No. 194 of 99 in Criminal Case No. 396/02. The respondent accused objected to proof of the panchanama in that criminal case on the ground that the copy of the said panchanama has been filed in Special Case No. 9/01 which is with regard to the possession of disproportionate assets by the respondent herein. What this Court has observed is that no document pertaining to the investigation in a crime under the Anti Corruption case should be proved in the cases pending against the present 4 respondent in University Scam cases. The panchanama which is sought to be proved was prepared basically in Crime No. 194/99 which does not relate to a case under Prevention of Corruption Act. Since it is a panchanama which does not relate to a case under Prevention of Corruption Act I see no reason why the prosecution cannot prove that panchanama in another case. The application therefore has to be allowed. The prosecution is allowed to prove panchanama in Crime No. 194 of 99 in Criminal Case No. 396/02. The prosecution was permitted to file certified copy of the charge sheet in the anti corruption case. Charge sheet is a public document. The trial Court should therefore decide to what extent it can be 5 read being a public document. Steno copy of the order be supplied to the learned counsel for the State. JUDGE svk