1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 129 / 2010 (Rajesh Bhaiyalal Mirjamale vs. 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 ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : 23rd February, 2011. Heard Mr. S.A.Mohta, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr D M Kale, learned APP for respondent. By this application, the applicant has challenged the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 9.7.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions trial No.159/2007. It appears that the Revision-applicant had preferred an application in the trial Court under section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a prayer that Police Station Officer of City Kotwali Police Station, Akola be directed to produce the station diary dated 11.8.2008 and lock-up register dated 13.8.2009 before the Court, in the interest of justice. It appears that the application was opposed by the prosecution on the ground that it is a matter of evidence and its application, contending that 2 Court may call diary if considered essential at the time of evidence. The learned Addl .Sessions Judge, however, appears to have been swayed away by the fact that Sessions Court was directed to complete the trial within four months with effect from 6.5.2010 and thus stating that the application is based on conjectures and surmises he proceeded to reject it. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that the applicant has a serious grievance in respect of documents prepared by the police in the case and, therefore, the applicant was interested to bring the documentary evidence before the learned trial Judge to pray for appropriate relief of discharge from the case. Thus, a detailed application was preferred regarding alleged manipulations in the FIR. It is under these circumstances, the learned Advocate for the applicant contended that the rejection of application was unjust and improper, particularly when learned APP also mentioned in his objection that the Court can call for diary if found essential at the time of evidence. Heaving perused the impugned order it is difficult to agree with the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to say that the application is based on conjectures and surmises particularly when the applicant had mentioned concrete facts including date and time of the FIR, spot panchnama, seeking just decision in the case and requesting for production of lock-up register and the 3 station diary which was thought relevant and necessary by the applicant for just decision of the case. Under these circumstances, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge could have with reference to section 91 permitted production of documents as prayed for, in the interest of justice for just decision in the case. Thus, in the interest of justice it is always open for the trial Judge to insist upon production of any document or thing which may be necessary or desirable for any enquiry or trial and direct the production of the document or thing if a person requires production of any document or thing required any person may be called upon to comply with the direction of the Court. Just decision of the case is a salutary objective of the trial or proceeding. At this stage, learned APP stated that the prosecution is ready and willing to produce any document as may directed by the trial Court. In this view of the matter, I think the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is rather indefensible and unsustainable in law. As such, the impugned order is set aside. Instead, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is directed to insist upon production of documents as desired by the learned Advocate for the accused pursuant to application Exh.137. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge concerned shall direct production of necessary documents or things 4 in view of Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. And then proceed further with the case, according to law. The impugned order is,therefore, set aside. Revision Application is allowed accordingly. JUDGE sahare