ORDER:

Assailing the order dated 25.03.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.80 of 2022 in Sessions Case No.3 of 2018 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge-cum-IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, whereby the petition filed under Section 233(3) of Cr.P.C. to summon the Superintendent of Tihar Jail, New Delhi, to produce the remand report of the petitioner, who is A13, was dismissed, the instant Criminal Revision case has been preferred by the petitioner.

2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.

3) The petitioner is A13 in Sessions Case No.3 of 2018 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge-cum-IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. He is being tried for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 148, 302, 440 and 212 r/w.149 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The evidence of the prosecution is closed. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The matter was posted for adducing defence evidence. At that stage, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 233(3) Cr.P.C. to summon the Superintendent of Tihar Jail, New Delhi to produce the remand report relating to the remand of the petitioner for judicial custody in connection with Crime No.382 of 2012 of Kalyanpuri Police Station, New Delhi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w.34 of IPC and in Crime No.394 of 2014 of Kalyanpuri Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 341, 324, 09 r/w.34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. It is the case of the petitioner, who is A13, that it is alleged by the prosecution that on 01.07.2014 he has conducted a Recce in Eluru and that as he was remanded to judicial custody and as he was in Tihar Jail in New Delhi, from 12.05.2014 to 08.08.2014 that the question of the petitioner conducting a Recce on 01.07.2014 in Eluru does not arise. Therefore, to prove the said plea of alibi that he was in Tihar Jail, New Delhi, on 01.07.2014, he has filed the said petition to summon the Superintendent, Tihar Jail, New Delhi, to produce the remand report of the petitioner.

4) The said petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order. Therefore, assailing the legal validity of the impugned order, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

5) The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram of Krishna District, filed counter-affidavit, wherein, at para.11, it is admitted that the certified copy filed by the petitioner/A13 reveals that the petitioner is admitted in Tihar Jail, New Delhi, from 12.05.2014 to 08.08.2014 as under trail prisoner in Crime No.382 of 2012 of Kalyanpuri Police Station, New Delhi and also in connection with Crime No.394 of 2014 of Kalyanpuri Police Station.

6) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would fairly concede before this Court at the time of hearing that the petitioner was admitted in Tihar Jail, New Delhi from 12.05.2014 to 08.08.2014 as an under trail prisoner in connection with the above two crimes.

7) Therefore, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that as the prosecution has now admitted in the counter- affidavit that the petitioner was in Tihar Jail, New Delhi from 12.05.2014 to 08.08.2014 as an under trail prisoner in connection with Crime No.382 of 2012 of Kalyanpuri Police Station, New Delhi and in connection with Crime No.394 of 2014 of Kalyanpuri Police Station, New Delhi that the petitioner would use this admission made in the counter-affidavit as evidence in proof of his plea of alibi. Therefore, he would submit that permitting the petitioner to produce this counter-affidavit before the trial Court as evidence on behalf of the petitioner to prove his alibi that this Criminal Revision Case may be disposed of.

8) Therefore, in view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to produ