IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.27163 OF 2009 RENU SINHA @ RENU KUMARI SINHA, WIFE OF SHRI MAHESH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALHEE, POLICE STATION SAHARSA, DISTRICT SAHARSA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF VIGILANCE, PATNA, BIHAR …………………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES ********* FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. AWADHESH KUARM MISHRA, ADVOCATE 3 02/02/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has filed this application against the order dated 06.08.2008 passed in Special Case No. 61 of 2007 pending before the Special Judge, Patna. An application was filed enclosing a list of 70 documents which, according to the petitioner, he should have been supplied in this case. I find that a number of documents have already been supplied to the petitioner. What remains to be supplied, if already not supplied, are item nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all exhibits referred to by the prosecution, 30, 31, 46 and 56. A number of documents asked for in this list as mentioned is perhaps overlapping and most of the documents such as exhibits etc. have been supplied to 2 the petitioner. The receipt of the documents must already be on records so that there must not be any confusion regarding this aspect. The petitioner may be supplied the above mentioned documents, if already not supplied, as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner should co-operate and receive the documents as and when supplied. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)