ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate for the respective parties.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent – State.

3. Present petitioner has preferred the present petition being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.9 of 2023 registered with Morbi Maliya Miyana being CR. No. I-0749 of 2022 for the offence under Sections 302 and 504 against the accused.

4. It appears that trial is going on and prosecution witness no.19 namely Mayurbhai Prabhatbhai Sonara is examined below Exh.84. He has filed the charge-sheet and collected the documents. During the investigation and he has filed the charge- sheet in question, along with the charge-sheet, he has produced entries of the station diary, which were made by the witness PSO, who is examined as witness no.17 namely Kanubharana below Exh.62, on 1.11.2023, he also cross-examined and he has produced the station diaries’ entries at Exhibits 63, 64, 66, 68 and 71 and documents were exhibited and in cross-examination he has admitted that he does not have any personal knowledge but in the cross-examination he has voluntarily admitted that entries qua scufÒe is made inadvertently.

5. In the aforesaid background while defence was going to cross-examine the Investigating OfÏcer and going to ask question qua aforesaid documents i.e. station diaries’ entries and he was restricted by the learned Sessions Judge.

6. Considering the objection raised by the learned APP as the witness is already examined and Investigating OfÏcer is having no any personal knowledge and such question are not permissible and relevant. Hence, considering the said objection, the request made by the learned defence advocate and application filed below Exh.19 came to be dismissed and no permission was given to ask such question.

7. In aforesaid background, being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the present petition is filed for the limited purpose to put certain question qua station diaries and documents produced at Exh.63, 64, 66, 68 and 71 qua entries made in the station diary by the PSO to the I.O. and during the entry what he has investigated in reference to the entry made in station diary.

8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perusing the materials available record, it appears that the very innocuous demand and for the defence also, it is required to be posed such question considering the reply of the PSO, examined below Exh.62 to pose such question to I.O. to prove the defence of accused. Merely, asking such question, no prejudice caused neither to prosecution nor cause any adverse effect to trial. Even otherwise, learned Sessions Judge ought to have grant permission considering the provisions of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. with a view to do complete justice and also because of considering the reply of the PSO such question was necessary to prove the defence of the accused and for the limited purpose only qua documents of the Station Diaries and investigation carried out with regard to the entries made in the station diary, accused has a right to posed question to the witness.

9. Considering the fact that learned Sessions Judge has relied on Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short the “Act”) and refused the permission. Section 139 of the Act is for the witness of the production of the documents, herein, the witness has already examined, he has produced the documents, who is a PSO. So far as the present witness is concerned, he is Investigating OfÏcer and he has received the papers and annexed with the charge-sheet and he has investigated the offence, then pursuant to the entry made in the station diary what investigation being conducted or carried out by the witness does not fall withing purview of Section 139 of the Act, apart from Section 148 of the Indain Evidence Act also there are other provisions of Indian Evidence Act, which defines the ground rules for cross-examination during questioning, no do