The court affirmed the magistrate's discretion to allow inspection of voluminous documents instead of providing copies under Section 173, Cr. P. C.

1. The petitioner is facing trial under Section 409, I. P. C. He had challenged the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar dated 14-5-1979, which is as follows :-

"Heard. The entries in the registers are voluminous, and it is not possible to supply the copies of all the entries in the registers. The examination-in-chief of Suraj Bhan was recorded on 29-3-1979 and cross-examination was deferred and accused was allowed time to inspect registers. The accused through his counsel in fact inspected the file on 30-4-1979 for this purpose. The application has only been made to delay the proceedings and to harass the witness and as such the present application in view of Section 207 Proviso is declined".

2. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to supply the copies of the documents presented by the police under Section 173, Cr. P. C. I do not find any merit in this contention. In addition to Section 173 Cr. P. C., there is second proviso to Section 207 Cr. P. C. which is as follows :-

"Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either, personally or through pleader in Court."

3. From the reading of this second proviso to Section 207 Cr. P. C. it is plain that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with copies, direct that he may be allowed to inspect it personally or through a pleader in Court. The learned Magistrate has found that the record is voluminous and he also allowed the petitioner through his counsel to inspect it. In fact, the record was inspected on 30-4-1979. Accordingly I do not find any merit in this petition. The order passed by the Magistrate is proper and just. The revision petition seems to be filed by the petitioner only to delay the matter. The same is dismissed.