IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5394 of 2010 Arvind Kumar, son of Raghunandan Prasad, resident of Gardanibagh Road No. 1, PS Gardanibagh, district Patna – petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Vigilance Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. Addl. Director General, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna. 3. Officer Inchrage, Vigilance Police Station, Patna. 4. All Investigating Officers of Special Case No. 07/2001 – opp. parties. 2 18.2.2010 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar appearing in person. In this application the petitioner has made a prayer that he should be supplied all the documents. It is apparent from perusal of the records, the order sheet, applications, petitions and objections of the petitioner, that the case diary was supplied to the petitioner and also F.S.L. report along with the receipt of currency notes which were seized and deposited in the Malkhana. The petitioner submits that he has not been given the FSL report at the time when his fingers were dipped in the solution. It is his apprehension that he would not be able to cross examine the witnesses if he is not supplied the entire case diary. It is said that there are thirty four witnesses but he has not been given the statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The court will ensure that the Vigilance Department supplies the exhibits that it intends to rely on and it would be essential for the petitioner to receive them without any objection. It is made clear that the petitioner cannot take a stand that these are not the proper documents at the time of their supply. However the petitioner can raise whatever objection he wants in his defence at the time of argument regarding the value of those documents viz-a-viz 2 prosecution case. The Vigilance Department is granted ten days time to supply the necessary documents after receipt of this order. No further objection will be heard on this ground as the trial is pending for this reason for a pretty long time. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Unless and until the documents are supplied as mentioned above, the court should not take any coercive step against the petitioner. His refusal after this order, however, will not come in the way of the court to act in accordance with law. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)