P K CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of both sides, the matter has been taken up for final hearing. The petition has been filed seeking a direction to the learned XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai to record the evidence of P.W.4 in C.C. No. 13 of 2009 pending on the file without allowing P.W.4 o peruse the C.D. File of the case.

(2.) The Petitioner is an accused in C.C. No. 13 of2009 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases. The case was taken for trial and three witnesses were already examined. One Mr. C.S. Mony, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI was called as P.W.4 on 31.1.2011. According to the Petitioners, the said witness entered the witness box with case diary file pertaining to the Petitioner's case and started deposing after perusing the C.D file. It was objected by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. It was objected on the ground that a statement under Section 161(3) of the witness was recorded by the investigating officer one Mr. G. Palaniappan and therefore, the witness cannot peruse the C.D file and depose. However, the objection was overruled by the trial court but the evidence was stopped. Therefore, the Petitioner has come forward before this Court seeking for the above relief.

(3.) Mr. Sankarappan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was called as PW4 cannot peruse the case diary and depose as the case diary cannot be an evidence before the Court of law. The learned Counsel relied on an oldest Full Bench English judgment delivered on 13.7.1897 and reported in 17 A.W.N 1897 174 (Queen Empress v. Mannu) .