IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.22 of 2008 LALU PASWAN Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 20.01.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant writ petition, the prays for calling for the case diary/original copy of the case diary of Sheikhpura Police Station case no. 220 of 1994, Sessions Trial No. 828 of 2007 pending in the court of the Additional Sessions judge I, Munger. The petitioner submits that he is the informant of the case. He filed a petition on 3.10.2008 to 3.10.2007 praying therein to call for the case diary. He submits that the case diary should be there on the record of the case. Mr P.K.Verma, learned Addl Advocate General -11 appearing for the State submits that the trial is conducted by Special public prosecutor appointed by the government. He submits that the court nowhere states that the copy of the diary is to be given to the informant of the case. He further submits that the petition calling for the carbon copy of the case diary was not pressed. Four witnesses have been examined by the now. Section 225 of the Cr.P.C. provides that in every trial prosecution case be conducted by public prosecutor. Section 162(2) of the Cr.P.C. provides that no part of statement of the prosecution witnesses incorporated in the case diary could be used by the accused, save and except provided under section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ( in short the Act). Section 172(3) of the Act states that neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call - 2 - for the case diary nor they are entitled to see it merely because it has been referred to by the Court. However, if the police officer uses them to refresh his memory or court uses them for purpose of contradicting such police officer, then provision of section 161 and 145 of the Act comes into play. This court finds from the counter affidavit that petition was filed by the informant and the same was not pressed or moved by any lawyer. In such a situation, the informant cannot raise grievance that the trial court did not call for the case diary. However, as the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition, it is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to him to move appropriate application before the trial court which would be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. Shashi. (S.P.Singh,J)