IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21176 of 2010 RAMESH KUMAR SON OF LATE UDIT NARAYAN PURBEY, RESIDENT OF VILL. RAMPUR PARORI, P.S. DUMARA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI …. PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE VIGILANCE …. OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 3. 25.2.2011 The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 8.4.2010 passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance (Trap), Patna in Special Case No.42 of 2007, by which he is proposing to frame charges against the petitioner despite non-supply of certain documents which he had earlier ordered. On specific query by this Court as to what was the documents the petitioner submits that it was the “peet- patra” which was required by him. The submission is that even though the peet-patra has not been mentioned in the column 10 of the charge sheet he is entitled to receive it since the Investigating Agency has been annexing the peet-patra in other charge sheets. The further submission is that in some cases there has been specific order that the peet-patra should be supplied to the accused persons. In my view, it is totally unambiguous that the petitioner is entitled to only those documents which are mentioned in Section 173(5) i.e. the documents the prosecution is proposing to rely upon and, therefore, the - 2 - prayer of the petitioner is totally without any legal force. In view of such, the application is dismissed. However, if the prosecution at any stage proposes to rely on any document which has not been supplied to the accused persons at the stage of 207 Cr.P.C., the same shall be precluded from consideration by the trial court. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )