Sureshbabu Dulappa Talbhandare vs State of Maharashtra

Bhatia J.H., J.—Rule. The applicant is an accused in Special Case (ACB) No. 3/2007 and the trial is in progress. During the cross-examination of PW-3 Gajanan Goswami Juikar, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau at Thane, during the year 2004, a question was put to him on behalf of the accused as to whether he was producing station diary extract. This question was not allowed by the Special Judge on the ground that it pertains to official record. That order is challenged in the present application. Another grievance is that the Special Judge failed to pass an order on his notice u/s 294 Cri.P.C.

Section 172 Cri.P.C. makes provision for maintenance of case diary day-to-day in respect of investigation of a case by the Investigating Officer. Under sub-section (2) any Criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial and may use such diaries not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial. Subsection (3) specifically provides that neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such case diary nor they shall be entitled to see the same merely because the case diary is referred to by the Court. Station diary is maintained at the Police Station and all the movements of the Police Officers and staff, information received from time to time during the course of the day is entered into in the station diary. The station diary is a public record and even a certified copy of the same can be obtained. There is no prohibition under law that accused cannot call for the station diary or cannot see the same. It appears that the learned Special Judge has mistaken the station diary for case diary while refusing the question. If the accused puts a question and requires to the production of station diary if it is maintained in that office, the question cannot be disallowed. However, if the station diary is not being maintained in the office of Dy. Supdt. of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, the matter would be different.

Another grievance of the applicant is that he had tendered certain documents along with his application Ex. 55 and called upon the prosecution to admit or deny the genuineness of those documents u/s 294 of Cri.P.C. It appears that the learned Special Judge called the APP for his say but thereafter neither say was filed nor he passed any order nor the accused was allowed to refer those documents. In view of the provisions of section 294, where a document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused with necessary particulars of the same, the accused or the prosecution shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of documents. If the documents are admitted to be genuine, they can be exhibited and admitted in evidence. The learned Special Judge should have passed the formal order on the said application after giving opportunity to the prosecution to file say.

In view of the above, the trial Court is hereby directed that if the station diary is being maintained in the office of Dy. Supdt, of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, the accused shall be permitted to put the question and if necessary to call station diary and cross-examine the witness on the basis of the entries therein, as far as the said entries are relevant for the case. In respect of the notice u/s 294 - Exhibit 55, the learned Special Judge shall pass appropriate orders in view of the above observations. Rule made absolute accordingly.