USHAKANT NARANBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed by the original accused against the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 9 at Ahmedabad on 21-2-1986 on the application made by him at Exhibit 12 in Criminal Case No. 964 of 1985.

(2.) By the said application the accused-petitioner requested the Court to pass an order under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code for getting the documents produced by the prosecution witness. The said documents are five in number, i.e. (1) the original search warrant issued under Section 132 of the Income-Tax Act; (2) Panchanama made during the raid by the income-tax authorities at the residence of the accused on 3-6-1983; (3) two statements of the accused recorded by the income-tax officer on 3-6-1983 during the raid; (4) statement of Kusumben, wife of' the accused recorded on 3-6-1983 during the raid and (5) statement of Kamlaben, mother of the accused recorded on 3-6-1983, during the raid. There is no dispute on the point that Mrs. Singh, Income-tax Officer has raided the said' Premises and she is cited as a witness in the aforesaid case.

(3.) The learned Magistrate in his order stated that the Income-tax Officer who was to remain present for giving dedosition cannot be directed to bring with her certain statements/documents. The other reason given by the learned Magistrate is that it is not stated as to how the defence counsel wants to contradict the prosecution witnesses. It is also observed by the learned Magistrate that after the prosecution case is over when the case is at the stage of leading defence evidence, it would be a different matter. It is also observed by the learned Magistrate that the statements of the accused as well as the relatives of the accused are not relevant and on this basis the application was rejected by the learned Magistrate.