1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.481 OF 2009. Anil Ambadasrao Bankar ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. ... Mr.Mukul Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.R.D.Reddy, A.P.P. for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 21.07.2009. PER COURT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The petitioner is facing charge of double murders committed on 11.7.2006, vide Sessions Case No.42/2006. The Sessions trial has 2 been completed and statement of the petitioner U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. came to be recorded. The prosecution alleged that on 11.7.2006, the petitioner was arrested and was subjected to clinical examination for verification of nature of injuries sustained by him. The Medical Officer, however, was not examined during the trial in order to establish as to what kind of injuries were sustained by the petitioner and, therefore, after recording statement of the petitioner U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. again the Medical Officer was called to enter the witness box. The learned Sessions Judge passed an order dated 12.2.2009, suo-motu calling upon the Medical Officer to give his further statement and further directed that a copy of Injury Certificate issued regarding examination of the petitioner/accused shall be furnished to him. This order was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that such suo-motu action of the Sessions Judge was impermissible and improper. This Court, however, rejected the Writ Petition No.226/2009. Thereafter, C.W. Dr.Katariya, was examined as a Court witness. A copy of Injury 3 Certificate was also furnished to the petitioner before Dr.Katariya was put in the witness box. After recording of statement of C.W. Dr.Katariya, again the learned Sessions Judge directed the prosecution to supply copy of OPD Register to the petitioner and recalled C.W. Dr.Katariya and the Police Officer as Court witnesses. The procedure was objected by the petitioner but the objection was repelled. 3. Having heard learned counsel and learned A.P.P. and on going through the impugned order, it is amply clear that the learned Sessions Judge, erroneously observed that his earlier order dated 12.2.2009, was not properly complied with. The final order shows that on 12.2.2009, the learned Sessions Judge directed two things : (i) Issuance of summons to the Doctor; (ii) Giving of copy of Injury Certificate, if any, to the petitioner/accused before examination of the Doctor. 4 Both these conditions were complied with. It is none of the business of the Sessions Court to dig out the material on which the prosecution itself does not wish to rely. The Sessions Court has no business to fill up the gaps. It is only in certain contingencies that the special power available U/s 311 of the Cr.P.C. can he invoked. The identity of the person who was examined by P.W. Dr.Katariya could be established by the prosecution and moreover, there is ocular evidence tendered. Therefore, it is necessary for the learned Sessions Judge to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective instead of protracting the trial by passing such kind of an order. The power available U/s 311 of the Cr.P.C. is required to be invoked where it is necessary to ensure fair trial. Once the power was invoked and C.W. Katariya was examined after due compliance of the earlier order it was not proper on part of the Sessions Judge to again call for the OPD Register and other documents which were never placed on record. The Sessions Judge may not be a mute spectator in the course 5 of such trial but it is necessary to avoid excessive creativity by the Sessions Court in such kind of trial. 4. For the reasons aforestated, the impugned order dated 22.4.2009 is quite improper and perverse and as such is liable to be quashed. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The Sessions Judge is directed to finally hear the parties and decide the Sessions case expeditiously. Rule made absolute accordingly. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp48109