DIBAKAR BHOI Vs. BHOIANATH ROUT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision is directed against the order dated 17.04.2007 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Baripada in I.C.C. No. 45 of 2007 refusing to issue search warrant under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for production of documents.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner/complainant filed a complaint case registered as I.C.C. Case No. 45 of 2007 against the opposite parties under Sections 167/218/466/120 -B/34 I.P.C. before the learned S.D.J.M., Baripada, who recorded initial statement on 13.04.2007. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition under Section 91 Code of Criminal Procedure for production of Birth Register alleged to have been forged. In the said petition, the Petitioner prayed for the attendance of the opposite parties/accused persons and production of the entire Birth Register. The learned S.D.J.M. after hearing the Petitioner, rejected the application on 17.04.2007 on the ground that since there was no material before the court to infer that there had been manipulation in the Birth Register, there was no necessity to issue search warrant and it was not proper to direct production of the Register at that stage of the case.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State submitted that this revision is not maintainable as it arises out of an interlocutory order Either an application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure or a Writ Petition under Section 226 and 227 will lie against such an order. In this connection he draws the attention of the court to the decision in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhanjalal and Ors. : 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335.