( 1 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 4/12/1984 passed by the City Sessions Judge Ahmedabad on Ex. 65 in Sessions Case No. 71/84 directing the prosecution to examine as prosecution witnesses (1) Mr. Patil and his associates who might have taken active part in the investigation carried out in Rajasthan (2) the Executive Magistrate who had held the identification parade and who should be asked to appear before the Court with the identification parade panchmahal and (3) the handwriting expert whose report has been produced the State has filed this revision application challenging the said order.

( 2 ) IT is the prosecution case that the incident took place on 24-2-84 at Ahmedabad wherein one Allauddin was murdered. It is alleged that the accused No. 1 Manzoorali had a motive to do away with the deceased as he was allegedly running gambling dens and was doing business in illicit liquor and was suspecting that the deceased was informing the police about his illegal business and at his instance the police was frequently raiding his premises and lodging cases against him. It is alleged that he in company of other four accused came near the shop of the sons of the deceased. The deceased was sitting on the chair in front of the shop on the footpath. There accused No. 1 exhorted accused No. 2 to kill the deceased and in pursuance thereof accused No. 2 fired shots from the revolver which caused instantaneous death of the deceased. Thereafter all the accused tried to run away but accused No. 2 was apprehended by two plain-dressed Police Constables while the rest of the accused succeeded in escaping. This incident was witnessed by number of witnesses and the prosecution has examined 13 persons as eye-witnesses.

( 3 ) IT is the defence of the accused No. 1 that he was arrested by the police attached to Kotda Chhavni in Rajasthan on 18-2-84 for the offences punishable under section 41 read with section 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code and other offences. This place is situated on the border of Gujarat and Rajasthan States. After his arrest he was kept in Udaipur jail and was ultimately released on bail on 27-2-84. It is his defence therefore that on the relevant day of the incident i. e. 24-2-84 he was in Udaipur jail and therefore he has nothing to do with the murder of Allauddin and he has been falsely implicated.

( 4 ) AFTER examining the material witnesses the prosecution filed an application for closing the evidence. Thereafter accused No. 1 filed the aforesaid application Ex. 65 praying as under:- (A) The Honble Court should direct the prosecution to produce the entire original record directly or indirectly pertaining to the investigation carried in Rajasthan including the registers copies of registers jail tickets or any other record obtained from Udaipur Jail and/or from different police station of Udaipur including the opinion of the handwriting expert and the original documents which were given to the handwriting expert for the purpose of opinion. (B) The Honble Court may direct the prosecution to produce the original panchnama regarding identification parade held by the executive Magistrate Ahmedabad Metropolitan Area on 23-3-84. (C) The Honble Court will be pleased to direct the prosecution at least to examine the Executive Magistrate Ahmedabad Metropolitan Area who held the identification parade on 23-3-84 and the Jail Officers who had prepared the record in the jail regarding keeping accused No. 1 in Udaipur Jail and handwriting expert who has given the opinion and the Police Officers of Crime Branch who have taken part in the investigation.

( 5 ) THE learned Sessions Judge took into consideration the fact that Mr. Patil took over further investigation of the case and he in fact had gone to Rajasthan and carried out certain investigation there wherein he had examined some witnesses from Kotda Chhavni and some from Udaipur. He had also collected registers from Kotda Chhavni and fr