1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.34 of 2008 (Tejrao Jairam Ingale v. The State of Maharashtra) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Applicant. Shri S.S. Doifode, APP for Non-Applicant. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 10th December, 2008 The learned counsel for the applicant states that he is not pressing the prayer for discharge. He, however, points out that certain documents were required by him for his defence and he had made an application before the Special Judge vide Exhibit 42 for production of those documents, which was allowed. The documents were, however, not produced. The learned APP produced for my perusal a copy of the letter by Police Inspector, Police Station Akot that these documents, though seized in the offence from the applicant, are not available in the property room of the Police Station and no entry in respect of those documents was found. The learned APP rightly stated that since the documents are not available, there is no question of producing the same. Since the documents are not produced though they have been seized from the applicant and are not made available for his defence, the learned Trial Judge would 2 definitely take into consideration the possibility of drawing an inference that the documents have not been produced or have been allowed to be lost because they would have favoured the case of the applicant's innocence. The application stands disposed of. JUDGE pdl