IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.44533 OF 2008 BABUA TUDDU, SON OF SRI CHOTKA TUDDU, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOTHIA, POLICE STATION CHAKAI, DISTRICT JAMUI (BIHAR) VERSUS THE CBI.,PATNA ********** 2 03/08/2011 Heard Counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner has made a prayer in this application that he may be permitted to call for letter no. 6325 dated 23.06.1992 of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Hqrs., (Petitioner), Patna. The reason why the petitioner wishes to call for this letter is that Annexure-4, which is an extract of a file reveals that the Assistant Commissioner has mentioned that before refund was granted, the matter of file No. RG 23 A Part I & II was not sent to the petitioner for examination. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had granted a refund of RG 23A Part I & II, which was unwarranted. It is submitted that this letter disclosed the correctness of the notings in the file. The petitioner can enter into defence and call for the document and if the Court finds that it is essential to meet the ends of justice, the document ought to be normally called for by the Court. In the present case, Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would require to cross-examine the witnesses on the basis of this document and as such, it is essential that 2 the document may be called for before the prosecution case is initiated. There is no provision in the law which envisages that defence could call for documents before the prosecution witness commenced. However, the defence can produce a list of exhibits before the prosecution begins to examine his witnesses and cross-examine them on the basis of those documents which he has filed before the commencement of the prosecution evidence. The question as to whether it would be necessary to re-examine the witnesses or recall the witnesses will be considered by the concerned Court, if any such application is filed. The petitioner would have the right only to request the Court to call for document at the stage of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the aforesaid facts, this application for production of the aforesaid letter is dismissed. The petitioner may file an application at the stage of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if so advised. Since, the letter would be essential for the purpose of showing that the petitioner was involved in refund of money by the Central Excise Department, it is obviously necessary that the prayer of the petitioner, if made, should be allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )