The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 172(3) of Cr.P.C. and the scope of summoning case diaries of another case under Section 91 of the Code.

1. The petitioner, who is the second accused in S.C.No. 305 of 2006 on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court) of Coimbatore filed Crl.M.P.No.73 of 2008 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., to send for the following documents:

i) The personal note book of the Station Writer and Police Constables attached to All Women Police, Coimbatore East during the period of 30.4.2006 to 5. 2006.

ii) The copy of the complaint made by the mother of the petitioner, the entire enquiry file conducted by the Inspector of Police, B-9, Saravanampatti Police Station on 27. 2006 along with the statements of witnesses and the findings given thereon. But the learned Judge placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in SIDHARTH VS. STATE OF BIHAR reported in (AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 4352), dismissed the petition and being aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed the above criminal original petition.

2. Heard both.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in SIDHARTH VS. STATE OF BIHAR reported in (AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 4352) does not apply to the facts of this case, but the learned Judge has erroneously applied the legal principles laid down therein and dismissed the petition. In the said decision, the Apex Court has laid down in paragraph-27. The Apex Court has observed as under:-

"27. Lastly, we may point out that in the present case, we have noticed that the entire case diary maintained by the police was made available to the accused. Under Section 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code, every police officer making an investigation has to record his proceedings in a diary setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation. It is specifically provided in sub-clause (3) of Section 172 that neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the court, but if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of Section 161 CrPC or the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act shall be complied with. The court is empowered to call for such diaries not to use it as evidence but to use it as aid to find out anything that happened during the investigation of the crime. These provisions have been incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure to achieve certain specific objectives. The police officer who is conducting the investigation may come across a series of information which cannot be divulged to the accused. He is bound to record such facts in the case diary. But if the entire case diary is made available to the accused, it may cause serious prejudice to others and even affect the safety and security of those who may have given statements to the police. The confidentiality is always kept in the matter of criminal investigation and it is not desirable to make available the entire case diary to the accused. In the instant case, we have noticed that the entire case diary was given to the accused and the investigating officer was extensively cross-examined on many facts which were not very much relevant for the purpose of the case. The learned Sessions Judge should have been careful in seeing that the trial of the case was conducted in accordance with the provisions of CrPC."

4. Based on the aforesaid submission, Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since in that case, the case diary relating to the case which are being tried had been ordered to be sent for. The said observation came to be made ..... the learned counsel in the case on hand. The petitioner-accused is not seeking the production of any case diary relating to S.C.No.305 of 2006 but the case d