IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2039 of 2010 VIRENDRA KUMAR @ BIRENDRA KUMAR, son of Sri Bhuneshwar Prasad, Mohalla Jairam Bazar, PS Khagaul, district Patna, at present Station Master, Jamui Railway Station under Danapur Division, East Central Railway – petitioner. Versus UNION OF INDIA THRU. C.B.I. ----------- 2 9.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, counsel for the C.B.I. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 4.12.2009 passed, in Special Case No.7/2006, arising out of RC- PAT2006A0012, dated 23.6.2006, by the Special Judge, CBI (South Bihar), Patna. Applications have been filed on behalf of the accused petitioner on 26.2.2009 and 27.2.2009 making a prayer that the C.B.I. should supply the statements under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. as far as it relates to PWs 1, 8, 17, 18 and 19. The petitioner has also made a prayer that a copy of the station of railway register regarding the shift of duty should be called for by the court, photo copy of the printed card ticket no. 31102, Jamui to Durgapur should be supplied to the petitioner and attestation of log register relating to shift of duty of the three persons working at the station in question should also be called for by the court. Counsel for the C.B.I. on the basis of the instructions submits that there is no statement under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of PWs 1, 8, 17 and 18. Sri J.P. Mishra, PW 1 is to prove the registration of the FIR, Sri T.K. Majumdar, PW 8 will prove Ext. D/10, PW 17 will prove his complaint attached to the FIR and PW 18 2 will prove the joint check memorandum. On the basis of the instructions received this court finds that in fact PWs 1, 8 and 18 are formal witnesses. As far as PW 17 is concerned, he appears to be the complainant. Obviously if there is statement under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. which in most cases is usually taken, it would be necessary to supply the same to the petitioner. With respect to the copy of station of railway register regarding shift of duty and photo copy of the printed card ticket and attestation of log register, these documents obviously are the documents which the petitioner intends to rely to show that he was not posted at the place of occurrence when it allegedly took place. With respect to these documents it would be open to the court to consider this aspect, if during the trial the court feels that they are necessary documents inasmuch as they would throw some light on the case, and the petitioner is able to show that if the documents are not considered, the petitioner is likely to be prejudiced then and then only, it would be open for the court to call for the documents from the relevant railway station. This application is, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)