1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 305 /2011 (1. Govardhan Haribhau Dhole and others vs. The State of Maharashtra ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. P A Rajurkar, Adv. for applicants Mr D.B.Yengal, APP for Respondent-State CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 27 th June, 2011. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. By this application under section 482 read with Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( in short “ the Code”), the applicants seeks to quash and set aside the order passed below Exhs. 83, 85 and 89 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No. 39/2010. It is the grievance of the learned Advocate for the applicants (accused facing the trial) that the trial Judge did not grant permission to file documents on their behalf when the defence sought to produce previous statements of one of the prosecution witnesses, by name, Vikas @ Vikky Nandlal Roy recorded by the Police and permission was sought to produce the same. The prosecution had opposed the permission. The learned trial Judge rejected the prayer on the ground that the said statement is the subsequent statement in another proceedings which cannot be considered in sessions trial by another application Exh. 2 85. Learned Advocate for the accused sought production of case diary in Crime No. M-1/2010 which was also rejected on the ground that the case diary in Crime No. M-1/2010 is not relevant for the decision of the case. Learned Advocate for the accused sought to put certain questions in writing and sought permission of the trial Judge to put them, which also promptly turned down on the ground that the questions were not relevant for just decision of the trial. Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that if the defence is prevented or not permitted from filing certain documents and prevented from putting certain questions which may affect the decision of the case, the defence would suffer irreparably. According to learned Advocate for the applicants, the same Investigating Officer in the Sessions Trial had conducted the investigation of Crime No. M-1/2010 and had recorded statements of myriad witnesses, out of which witness, by name, Vikas Nandlal Roy figured as prosecution witness in the Sessions trial. His previous statement recorded by the Investigating Officer was sought to be relied upon by the defence. Certain questions were also proposed during the course of cross- examination in writing which were refused by the order passed below Exh.89 by the learned trial Judge. Regarding the order below Exh. 85 learned Advocate for the applicants do not want to press challenge since it 3 appears an application regarding production of case diary in Crime No. M-1 /2010. The diary of investigation maintained by Police officer has limited value for any criminal court which may call upon the police to produce it and use it not as evidence in the trial, but just to aid pre- enquiry or trial. Section 172 (3) of the Code makes it clear that neither accused nor his agent shall be entitled to call for such diaries. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order of the learned trial Judge in connection with Exh.85. Learned Advocate for the applicants also do not want to press this portion of the prayer in the Application. As regards, order below Exh. 83, it is right of the accused to rely upon any document of course, such document is required to be produced along with the list as contemplated under section 294 of the Code and the prosecution ( other side) ought to be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of such documents. If such genuineness is not disputed such documents may be read in evidence without requiring the proof of the signature of the person by whom it is purportedly signed. However it is for the learned trial Judge concerned to require the proof of signature. Therefore, since the learned defence Advocate wants to rely upon certain documents production of the same ought to be allowed as contemplated under section 294 of the Code. Regarding the order below Exh.89 passed by the learned trial Judge, it is expected that the learned trial Judge may record the questions in respect of which 4 permission is sought while recording the evidence in the trial and may grant permission to put the questions or refuse permission by passing a short reasoned order in the course of recording of the evidence. The learned trial Judge may act accordingly and in accordance with law. With these observations, the application stands disposed of. JUDGE Sahare