SUDHIR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

(2.) This petition is by the persons shown as accused, against whom application came to be filed seeking directions under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Said application came to be rejected. Respondent No.2 therefore filed Criminal Revision Application in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jalna. Pending said revision, the petitioners filed an application raising objection that the material such as Compact Disk (CD) produced by the complainant/respondent No.2 cannot be seen by the Sessions Court while deciding the revision application, as the same is not produced along with certificate under Sec. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the said application and thus the petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) At the time of alleged offence, petitioner No.1 was Dy. Superintendent of Police, petitioner No.2 was Police Inspector, petitioner No.2 was Police Sub-Inspector, Petitioner Nos.4,5 and 7 were Police Constables and petitioner No.6 was a driver in the Police Department. Petitioner No.8 is a Home Guard at Jalna. Respondent No.2 happens to be the complainant.