1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 327 of 2011 Govardhan v. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr S.C. Bhalerao, Adv for applicant Ms Kalyani Deshpande, Advocate for respondent-State Coram: A. P. Bhangale, J Dated: 09th August 2011 1. Applicant is seeking to quash and set aside order dated 15.6.2011 passed below exhibit 116 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 2010. 2. Applicant-accused filed application that he wants to examine himself on oath, but before that, he wants to go through the station diary entries in respect of crime no. 438/09. He prayed that those entries be called from Police Station, Yavatmal (City) and unless the concerned station diaries are called, it would not be possible for him to examine himself on oath. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant had sought for those station diary entries by making application under Right to Information Act, but the Information Officer has refused to supply copies in exercise of powers under Section 8 of the Act. 2 4. Learned APP opposed the application on the ground that statement of witness Vikey Roy recorded in subsequent proceeding is not admissible in evidence from the mouth of applicant-accused. 5. It has been brought to my notice that applicant- accused has been permitted by this Court to make application to cross-examine witnesses Viky, Pinki and Vinjay as per order dated 29th July 2011 passed in Criminal Application No. 399 of 2011. Order dated 27th June 2011 passed by this Court in Criminal Application No. 305 of 2011 is also brought to my notice. 6. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that averments made in the application have not been dealt with at all by the trial Court and in a cryptic manner, application has been rejected. Trial Court should bear in mind that it has to deal with the sessions trial in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XVIII of the Criminal Procedure Code. In that, where the accused is not acquitted under section 232, he shall be called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence he may have in support thereof. It is further provided that if the accused puts in any witten statement, the Judge shall file it with the record. If the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for 3 the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. 7. In the result, impugned order is set aside. Trial Court is directed to reconsider the application of the accused in the light of observations made in para 6 above and pass detailed order in accordance with law. JUDGE joshi