IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9037 of 2010 Santosh Kumar Kedia, Son of Late R.S. Kedia, the then Bank Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Chapia Branch, District Saran, Presently residing in the House of Ram Pujan Singh, Salempur, Police Station Chapra, District Saran. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The C.B.I., A.C.B., Patna. 2. Santosh Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Lautan Singh, Resident of Village Phonahara, P.O. Amardahi, Police Station Taraiyan, District Saran. -------- Opposite Parties ----------- 2 16.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation. Assailing the order dated 14.1.2010 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., North Bihar, Patna, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had demanded the statement of Sri B.C. Purkait, S.S. (Chem), CFSL, Kolkata and Sri Avinash B. Jog, Chairman Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, H.O.- Muzaffarpur recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. but they were not supplied. Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha learned counsel for the C.B.I. on the basis of instruction received by him (a copy whereof has been produced and kept on record) would submit that the C.B.I. had not recorded the statement of Sri B.C. Purkait, S.S. (Chem), CFSL, Kolkata and Sri 2 Avinash B. Jog, Chairman Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, H.O.- Muzaffarpur and, therefore, there would be no question of such statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. being given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner next contended that the petitioner had also demanded for supply of pre and post seizure verification report in this regard. Mr. Sinha in this regard on the basis of instruction received, would submit that as many as 16 documents relied by the C.B.I. have also been supplied as would be evident from Annexure-B to the instruction received by him. He further submitted that the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of the other persons have already been supplied. Considering these aspects and specially the fact that C.B.I. has already supplied the relevant documents by way of statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and the copies of sixteen other documents, this Court would find no error in the approach of the court below rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. 3 It is, however, made clear that if any document beyond 16 of them will be relied by the C.B.I. in course of trial, the same will not be allowed to be exhibited unless a copy thereof is given to the petitioner in advance or an inspection of such document is afforded to the petitioner and/or his counsel. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)