1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.494 OF 2007. Dattatraya Sampat Pachpande ... Petitioner. Versus Manoj Eknath Chaudhari and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.P.P.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 19.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The deceased Respondent No.1 lodged a complaint at the Police Station. It was contention of the petitioner before the trial Court that copy of the complaint produced could be exhibited. The deceased Respondent No.1 2 admitted in his cross-examination that he had lodged the complaint. However, he was not confronted with the original complaint as such nor the particular complaint was admitted to have been lodged by him. The trial Court held that the document (Exh.25/15) is the copy of the statement of the deceased Respondent No.1 Manoj Eknath Chaudhari. The statement of deceased Respondent No.1/Manoj or for that matter his complaint, as the case may be, can be proved by examining the concerned Police Station House Officer after calling the relevant record. Such a statement can not be treated as part of public record which is per se admissible and, therefore, no perversity is noticed in the impugned order dated 22.11.2006, rendered by the trial Court. Liberty to take appropriate steps in order to prove relevant copy which may be allowed during the trial. The petition is dismissed accordingly. The Civil Application disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/