SURESHBABU DULAPPA TALBHANDARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule.

(2.) 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 under Section 294, Cr.P.C.

(3.) Section 172, Cr.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. Sub-section (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.