Madras High Court
Stalin @ Stalin Samuel vs State Represented By Inspector Of ... on 24 August, 2007
Author: S. Palanivelu
Bench: S. Palanivelu
ORDER S. Palanivelu, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records relating to Crl.M,P.No,1941 of 2007 in S.C. No. 2 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur and revise the said order by setting aside the order in Crl.M.P. No. 1941 of 2007, dated 3.8.2007 and direct the Trial Court to issue summons to the respondent to produce documents referred to in Section 91 Cr.P.C. Petition dated 30.7.2007.
2. The petitioner is facing trial as second accused in the array of 18 accused for offences under Sections 148, 149, 302, 182, 201, 203, 149 r/w 120 (B) I.P.C. before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur.
3. It is stated that accused 1 to 14 conspired together and caused the death of one M.R. Ravi on 2.6,2006 in Padi within the Korattur Police Station limits on account of political rivalry.
4. The learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur has observed in his order that a case was posted for trial on 13.7.2007 but the accused had not extended his cooperation for the progress in the case.
5. The, present petitioner filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to send for the following documents from the T-3 Korattur Police Station.
a. The General Diary for the period 1.6.2006 to 30.6.2006.
b. Prisoner's Search register (PSR) for the period 1.6.2006 to 30.6.2006.
c. Grave Crime Register (GCR) for the period 1.6.20006 to 15.6.2006.
d. Telephone Message Book from 1.6.2006 to 10.6.2006.
e. Memo Book for sending the injured to Hospital for 1.6.2006 to 26.6.2006.
f. Printed FIR Book bearing Serial No. B 1003970 to B 1003990.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that since the accused is facing grave charges along with others such as 302 I.P.C., he has to advance his case before the Court as to other circumstances which lead to the registration of the case and the case favourable to him.
7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would raise stiff opposition by stating that the request of the petitioner is not legally permissible and it does not conform to the settled principles of law and the records enlisted in the petition filed by the petitioner could not be sent for from the Polite Station and if the Court is of the opinion that those documents are necessary for deciding the case, it may call for them and peruse them and the accused has no privilege either to send for or inspect them. His argument is fortified by Section 172 Cr.P.C. The said provision reads thus.
172. Diary of proceedings in investigation : (1) Every police officer making an investigation under this Chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary, setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.
(2) Any Criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a case under enquiry or trial in such Court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial.
(3) Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the Court; but, if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of Section 161 or Section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), shall apply.
8. All the records sought to be sent for from the police station are indisputably covered by the said provision and the accused has no right to request the Court to send for those records.
9. In this regard, the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur is in accordance with law which does not warrant any interference from this Court.
10. The revision petition suffers dismissal.
In fine, the revision petition is dismissed. Connected M.P. is also dismissed.