1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 113 OF 2011 KESHAV NANAJI MESHRAM ..VERSUS.. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH P.S.O., P.S., UMRED, DIST. NAGPUR AND OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. M. D. Mahajan, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M. J. Khan, A.P.P. for respondent no.1/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATED : 29 th AUGUST , 2011 . Heard Mr. M. D. Mahajan, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M. J. Khan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1/State. By the present application, the applicant is challenging the order passed below Exh. 74 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur dated 28.07.2011 in Sessions Trial No. 454 of 2007. The applicant had moved an application (Exh. 74) under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon the Police Station Officer, Umred (Rural) Police Station to produce the photographs of the deceased taken through the photographer along with the negative in Crime No. 87/2007 which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 28.07.2011. The sum and substance of the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the daughter of the applicant died unnatural death in her matrimonial house. Though, it is a case of murder, an attempt was made to show that it is a case of suicide. An application (Exh.74) was moved before 2 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, with a prayer to issue summons to the Police Station Officer, Umred (Rural) Police Station to produce 15 photographs and its negatives in the said Crime. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, on consideration of the material found that there is already one set of photographs with the signature of the photographer. The learned Judge further found that the prosecution has examined all the material witnesses and trial is at the fag end. The learned Judge has observed in the order that the complainant has moved various applications before the authorities viz. Police Commissioner, Vice President, President, M.L.A. etc. prior to filing of charge-sheet and also after filing the charge-sheet, which came to be dismissed. A Writ Petition No. 509 of 2007 was filed by the complainant before this Court challenging the dismissal of his earlier application. The said writ petition was withdrawn by the complainant. The learned Sessions Judge further observed that the matter is of the year 2007 and is pending since four years for disposal and the attempts of the applicant are nothing but seeking re-investigation, which would result in prolonging the trial. On considering the material, the learned Court below has arrived at a conclusion that no case is made out by the applicant and rightly rejected the application. I find no fault with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. the application is devoid of merits and deserves no interference at the hands of this Court. In the result, the criminal application is rejected. JUDGE Diwale