1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant – original accused has prayed for the following reliefs:

“7(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 9.11.2017 passed by ld. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Rajula on application Exh. 94 in Special ACB Case No.25 of 2011 and further be pleased to allow the application Exh. 94, as prayed for and also direct the investigating officer to produce the case diary in respect of FIR being C.R. No.1/2010 registered with Amreli ACB Police Station before this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice.

(B) Your Lordships be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Special ACB Case No.25 of 2011 pending in the Court of ld. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Rajula, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, in the interest of justice;

(C) Your Lordships be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of FIR as well as charge sheet, in the interest of justice.

(D) Your Lordships be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as are deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice;”

2. The facts of this case may be summarised as under:

2.1 The applicant accused is on trial in the Court of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge, A.C.B.), Rajula, for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act, 1988”). The proceedings are numbered as the Special A.C.B. Case No.25 of 2011. The proceedings arose from an F.I.R. being C.R. No.I1 of 2010 registered with the Amreli A.C.B. Police Station for the offences enumerated above.

2.2 In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:

“i. P.W. No.1Exh. 14 – Ghanshyambhai Valjibhai Statasiya (Complainant)

ii. P.W. No.2 – Exh. 35 – Bharatbhai Prabhudas Dave (Panch No.1)

iii. P.W. No.3 – Exh. 63 – Khumansinh Devebha Parmar (Raiding Officer)

iv. P.W. No.4 – Exh. 70 – Atul Kishorbhai Vyas (Sanctioning Officer)

v. P.W. No.5 – Exh. 76 – Meghrajsingh Dadubhai Jadeja (Investigating Officer)”

2.3 In the course of the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer namely Shri Jadeja (Exhibit: 77), certain questions were put to him by the defence counsel as regards the timings recorded in the panchnama of raid and the timings mentioned in the police statement of the panch witness No.1 namely Bharatbhai Prabhudas Dave (Exhibit: 35). The case of the applicant is that at the time of the recording of the police statement of the panch witness No.1 and recording of the panchnama of raid, the timings were not noted and were inserted at a later stage. The following questions were put to the PW – 5 namely Shri Jadeja during his cross-examination:

“i. Is it true that the timings recorded in the police statement of the panch no.1 Bharatbhai Prabhudas Dave, have been recorded as per the trap panchnama?

Ans. It is not true.

ii. Is it true that in the police statement of panch no.1 Bharatbhai Prabhudas Dave, writings of the first paragraph and second paragraph are of different font size?

Ans. It is not true.

iii. Is it true that in the same manner, in the second and third paragraphs of the said police statement, the timings are written from different pen, in bold letters and in narrow space?

Ans.: It is not true.”

2.4 In the course of the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, the defence counsel requested the Court that the police statement of the panch witness No.1 be brought on record and looked into. In this regard, an application Exhibit: 94 was submitted. Such application was submitted to establish or highlight that the police statements of the panch witness No.1 and the panchnama of the raid carried out were fabricated and the timings stated therein were inserted at a later stage. To put it in other words, the attempt on the part of the defence counse