Madan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

criminal procedure code - case diary--calling of--investigating officer desposed that he did not remember whether petitioner filed report and when he left police station--held, accused has no right to call case diary for contradicting him.;pw. 16 devilal deposed that he did not remember as to whether the petitioner has filed a report. he did not also remember as to at what time he left the police station. for contradicting the said witness on these counts the accused has no right to call for the case diary or force the investigating officer to look into it for refreshing his memory.;revision dismissed - rajendra saxena, j.1. notice was given to learned public prosecutor who accepted the same.2. heard. perused the impugned order dt. 25.1.1995 passed by learned sessions judge, pali, whereby he dismissed the application filed on behalf of accused-petitioner for calling the case diary during the cross examination of pw 16 devilal, investigating officer.3. i have also perused the statement of pw. 16 devilal recorded by learned trial judge. the investigating officer cannot be forced to make use of the case diary for refreshing his memory. as per provisions of section 2(3) of cr. p.c. neither the accused nor his agent is entitled to call for the case diary nor he or his advocate is entitled to see it merely because the case diary is referred to by the court. the case diary can only be used, if the police officer uses it for refreshing his memory or if the court uses the same for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, because for such matter the provision of section 161 cr. p.c and section 145 of indian evidence act can be pressed into service. the accused has no unfertered right to make roving inspection of entires in the case diary. in mukund lal v. union of india and anr. : air 1989 sc144 , the constitutional validity of section 172 has also been upheld.4. in the instant case, pw. 16 devilal deposed that he did not remember as to whether the petitioner has filed a report. he did not also remember as to at what time he left the police station. for contradicting the said witness on these counts, the accused has no right to call for the case diary or force the investigating officer to look into it for refreshing his memory. of course, the court if it so likes can look into the case diary at any stage of the trial. the impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference.5. with these observations, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.