MADAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE was given to learned public peosecutor who accepted the same. Heard. Perused the impugned order dt. 25. 1. 1995 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali whereby he dismissed the application filed on behalf of accused petitioner for calling the case diary during the cross examination of PW 16 Devilal, Investigating Officer.

(2.) I have also perused the statement of PW 16 Devilal recorded by learned trial Judge. The Investigating Officer cannot be forced to make use of the case diary for refreshing his memory. As per provisions of Section 2 (3) of Cr. P. C. neither the accused nor his agent is entitled to call for the case diary nor he or his advocate is entitled to see it merely because the case diary is referred to by the court. The case diary can only be used, if the police officer uses it for refreshing his memory or if the court uses the same for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, because for such matter the provision of Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. and Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act can be pressed into service. The accused has no unfettered right to make roving inspection of entries in the case diary. In Mukund Lal Vs. Union of India and another (l),the constitutional validity of Sec. 172 has also been upheld.