Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.@mdashHeard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in a case in which petitioner is facing prosecution under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner earlier for calling for copy of the station diary dated 17.6.2001 but the prayer was rejected on 28.2.2013 for the reason that certified/ attested copy of the relevant entry of the station diary had not been field. Subsequently, an application was field for calling for the same copy of the station diary along with attested copy of the relevant extract of the station diary, still that prayer was rejected, vide order dated 30.4.2013 by holding that since that prayer had been earlier rejected, he cannot review the order. By the same order, another application was rejected wherein prayer had been made to mark injury report as exhibit. That order dated 30.4.2013 has been challenged.
2. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that prayer for calling for the station diary had been rejected earlier as the copy of the relevant extract of the station diary had not been filed. When it was filed along with a petition, again the prayer was rejected which is quite illegal. At the same time, the court also refused to mark injury report as exhibit, though that injury report is on the record.
3. As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that earlier in the month of February, 2013, the prayer for calling for the station diary had been rejected and again the same prayer was made which was rejected on 30.4.2013 which never warrants to be quashed as it is evidently clear that application has been filed simply to delay disposal of the case and therefore, the prayer made in this application is fit to be rejected.
4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, that part of the order whereby the court below rejected the prayer for calling for the station diary seems to be wholly unjustified and hence, it is set aside for the reason that station diary in the fact and circumstances, seems to be necessary for just decision of the case. In such situation, keeping in view of the anxiety of the counsel of the Vigilance that the case be disposed of at the earliest it would be open for the prosecution to admit the genuinity of the document so that it could be admitted in evidence but if the genuinity of that document is not admitted then it will be open for the court to call for the relevant station diary so that it be taken in evidence on being proved.
5. So far other prayer of taking injury report in evidence is concerned, it does not seems to be necessary to be exhibited as such injury may not have any bearing over the case of the defence.
6. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioner today itself so that the court may proceed immediately.
