1. The petitioner herein is the 1st accused in S.C. No. 86 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Kalpetta. He along with the other accused are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324, 326, 307 read with 34 of the IPC.

2. After the close of prosecution evidence when it was felt that it was not a case of no evidence, warranting acquittal under Section 232 of the Code, the accused were called upon to enter upon their defence. An application which is produced as Annexure 1 was filed and three witnesses were sought to be summoned.

(a) The defence witness No. 1 was the Station House Officer of the Sultan Bathery Police Station and he was sought to be summoned to appear and produce the General Diary, Log Book, Vehicle Movement Register, Beat Book and Beat Register of Beat No. 1 of the said Station pertaining to the period from 15.12.2013 to 16.12.2013.

(b) The 2nd witness was the Superintendent of the Government Taluk Hospital, Sulthan Bathery, and he was required to produce the Intimation Register and office copy of intimation of certain injured persons.

(c) The 3rd witness was the Medical Officer-in-charge, Vinayaka Hospital, Suthan Bathery and he was sought to be summoned to produce the Intimation Register and office copy of the intimation of certain injured witnesses.

3. The said application filed purportedly under Section 233 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the bar under section 172 (3) would operate and the accused is not entitled to use the General Diary and the other documents sought for as of right. It was also held that the petitioner could have very well applied under the Right to Information Act to verify the said records and could have subsequently produced it before Court. The Court below also felt that the summoning of the documents would delay the proceedings and defeat the ends of justice.

4. The above order is assailed in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the prosecution allegation is that on 15.12.2013, the accused had attacked the first informant and his friends owing to previous enmity. But, the FIR is seen registered only on 17.12.2013. It was borne out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the police had reached the scene of crime on 15.12.2013 and had sealed the room in which the incident is alleged to have taken place. All the witnesses had also stated that the injured were initially taken to the Government Hospital, Sulthan Bathery and thereafter to the Vinayaka Hospital, Sulthan Bathery. These aspects, according to the learned counsel, if brought out in evidence, would affect the credibility of the witnesses and would create serious dent in the prosecution version. According to the learned counsel, the learned Sessions Judge fundamentally erred in dismissing the application. The bar under section 172 (3) would not apply as what was sought to be summoned was the General Diary maintained in the Police Station and not the Diary maintained by the Investigating Officer under Section 172 of the Code. According to the learned counsel, the accused is entitled as a matter of right to have any witness named in the list he delivers, summoned and examined. Violation of the mandate under Section 233(3) of the Code would certainly prejudice the accused and the precious right of the accused cannot be curtailed for reasons such as delay. The learned Counsel would further contend that instead of summoning the witnesses and documents as prayed for, the learned Sessions Judge has abdicated its powers and has directed the accused to apply under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. This is