Point of law: Quash of order - it is not upon accused to disprove their case or to show who the guilty is, and the entire Durden of proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt would be solely upon the prosecution, why the accused was in requirement of these documents, at this stage, is also not forthcoming

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the records in S.C.No.16/2010, presently pending on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, sitting at Anekal and further be pleased to set aside the order dated 19-09-2015 passed in S.C.No.16/2010 by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, on the application filed by the petitioners/accused under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and grant the said application in its entirety, in the ends of justice.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Final Hearing, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER :

The present petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in S.C.No.16/2010, pending before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, sitting at Anekal, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial Court”) for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the IPC").

2. The Advocate for the accused has filed an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") in the Trial Court, praying to call for four sets of documents as described below:

I) Station House Officer, Hebbagodi Police Station to cause the production of:

i) Station House Diary of Hebbagodi Police Station for the period from 09-09-2009 to 20-09-2009.

ii) Prisoners search register maintained at the Hebbagodi Police Station for the month of September 2009.

iii) Duty Roaster maintained at Hebbagodi Police Station for the month of September 2009.

iv) Lock-up guard book for the month of September 2009 maintained at the Hebbagodi Police Station.

II) Circle Inspector of Police, Attibele Circle Bangalore Rural District to cause the production of:

i. Dairy maintained by the Inspector in connection with the case in crime No.397/09.

ii. Log Book pertaining to the motor vehicle/Jeep allotted to the Inspector of Police during the month of September 2009.

iii. Note book maintained by the Inspector for the month of September 2009 wherein the entries with regard to his movements are made in connection with the discharge of his official duties.

III) The Superintendent of Police, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore to cause the production of the copies of the case dairy pertaining to the case in crime No.397/09 of Hebbagodi Police submitted to him through Dy.S.P. by the investigator and also the tappal book maintained in his office which would indicate the dates on which the copies of the case diaries came to be submitted by him.

IV) Officer in charge of District Control Wireless room, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore to cause the production of the record maintained by him which is in the nature of either log book or in any other register wherein entries with regard to the messages received and sent through wireless communication for the month of September 2009."

3. The said application was opposed by the prosecution.

4. The Trial Court, after hearing both side on the said application, by its order dated 19-09-2015, rejected the said application filed by the accused. Challenging the said order, the accused Nos.1 to 4 have preferred the present petition.

5. The respondent is being represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners in his argument submitted that, the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused, summoning four sets of documents mentioned in the application, since they wanted to confront those documents with the prosecution witness in their cross-examination. The same was required since the entire case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence and the alleged recovery of the materials. Therefore, the documents summoned were required for the accus