1. The petitioner herein, who is an accused No.8 in Special Case No.9 of 2016 has challenged the correctness of the order dated 20.9.2017 whereby the learned Special Judge (CBI), Mumbai dismissed the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts necessary to decide this petition are as under: On 21.8.2015 PSI Ganesh Dalvi and PI Dinesh Kadam attached to Khar Police Station, who were on patrolling duty found Shyamvar Rai with suspicious movements. They intercepted said Shyamvar Rai on suspicion. On taking personal search of said Shamvar Rai they recovered one pistol, three live cartridges and some other articles. The recovery of the said weapon and cartridges led to registration of L.A.C.No 34 of 2015 under Section 3 r/w. 25 of the Arms Act against said Shyamwar Rai.

3. In the course of investigation of LAC 34 of 2015 said Shamvar Rai made certain disclosure statement which led to registration of another crime No.406 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Section 120, 364, 20 and 203 of IPC against said Shyamvar Rai, Indrani Mukharjee and Sanjeev Khanna for abducting and committing murder of Sheena Bora. The investigation of the crime was subsequently transferred to CBI, and the said FIR was registered as Case No. RC. 12(s)/2015.CBI/SCI/N/New Delhi. A charge sheet dated 19.11.2015 was filed on the basis of further investigation conducted by CBI against the said three accused persons before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade. Upon Committal the said case was numbered as CBI Special Case No.117 of 2015. Further investigation was conducted under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., and the petitioner was arrested and a supplementary charge sheet was filed against him for the said offence. The said case came to be numbered as Special Case No.9 of 2016. Said Shyamvar Rai was treated as an approver.

4. The prosecution commenced its evidence by examining PW-1 Ganesh Dalvi. While PW-1 Ganesh Dalvi, was under cross examination, the petitioner filed an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for issuing summons to the concerned police officer for producing the personal diary, weekly diaries and case diaries maintained by PW-1 Ganesh Dalvi and PI Dinesh Kadam in LAC No.34 of 2015 registered at Khar Police Station. The learned Special Judge had rejected the said application by an order dated 20th July, 2017, which order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 3203 of 2017. By Order dated 4th September, 2017, the said writ petition came to be allowed. The Order dated 20th July, 2017 was quashed and set aside and the learned Special Judge was directed to consider the said application under Section 91 (Exh.149) after hearing the parties in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order, the learned Special Judge heard the parties and by the impugned order dated 20th September, 2017 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this petition.

5. Heard Mr. Shrikant Shevade, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He contends that as per the police manual as well as standing order No.100 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, the police are required to maintain a personal diary in a prescribed format. He contends that the notings/entries made in the diaries maintained under the standing order No.100 constitute previous statements. Relying upon the decision in the State of Kerala v. Babu & Ors. (1999) 4 SCC 621, he contends that the case diary in respect of the previous crime can be called for and the entires being previous statements can be used to contradict the concerned Officer.

6. Countering these submission, Mr. Anil Singh, the learned Addl. Solicitor General for the Respondent No.1 CBI has submitted that the prosecution has furnished copies of all the statements, including that of Shyamvar Rai to the petitioner. He contends that the application under Section 91 is not for making available any statem