1. Pursuant to the directions issued on the earlier occasion, the Public Prosecutor has produced case diary in connection with the missing complaint in question. When we waded through the said case diary, it was noticed that it was in the form of loose papers tagged together. It was not even paginated. We, therefore, called upon the learned Public Prosecutor to disclose the guidelines issued by the Department to the Police Officers pertaining to maintenance of case diary. He submits that as per the instructions received by the police officer, and in particular CID officers, the case diary is maintained in loose leafs and copy thereof is submitted to the superior officer from time to time. According to him, therefore, there is no possibility or likelihood of the same being tampered. Further, there is no provision in the Criminal Manual which mandates maintenance of bound case diary much less duly paginated. This submission was made on instructions of the Police Officers (1) Mr. S.S. Doddamani, Superintendent of Police, CID, Kolhpur Range & (2) Mr. Dilip Pandurang Jadhav, Dy. Superintendent of Police, CID, Kolhapur, who were present in Court.
2. We are shocked to hear such argument by the Public Prosecutor that too instructions given by such senior Police Officers, inspite of the mandatory requirement specified in Section 172(1B) of the Code which has come into force w.e.f. 31.12.2009. The same postulates that the diary referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 172 shall be in volume and duly paginated. The dictionary meaning of term "volume" reads as follows:
Volume: a book forming part of a work or series.
a single book or a bound collection of printed sheets.
[see Oxford English Dictionary, Indian Edition, Eleventh Edition]
3. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that possibility of tampering with the case diary or realigning the same at a later date to sub serve the prosecution case or the investigation done, is completely ruled out.
4. Realizing this position, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the concerned officials will take corrective measures forthwith. We are not so much concerned about compliance of that requirement in the case before us, but we are at a loss to know as to why the Home Department has so far not informed all the Police Officials who are expected to maintain the case diary, about the changed legal position which has come into effect from 31.12.2009. The fact that the Senior Police Officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police are not aware about such change, presupposes that the other Officers including the Officers lower in rank must be totally unaware about such requirement.
5. We therefore direct the Secretary of the Home Department to forthwith issue appropriate instructions to all concerned to comply with the mandate of changed legal position which has come into force w.e.f. 31.12.2009; and which must be observed by every Police Officer entrusted with the investigation of a case under Chapter XII of the Code, to maintain case diary in the form so prescribed. Such instructions be issued forthwith in any case not later than two weeks from today. Needless to observe that the trial Courts across the State must also insist for compliance of the above requirements in every case before them hereafter.
6. The case diary which was produced before us is returned to the Public Prosecutor.
7. At the request of the Public Prosecutor, we accede to the request of the Investigating Officers to grant further four weeks time to submit their further progress report. Accordingly, stand over to 24.2.2011.
