1. By filing this Revision Application under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioner has made following prayers.
“(1) Admit and entertain this application.
(2) Pass an order to stay the proceedings of the Sessions Case No.65 of 2010 conducted by the Hon'ble Seventh Addl. Sessions Judge of the District Court of Ahmedabad order dated 8.5.12 until the final decision of this application.
(3) Prescribe such other terms and conditions as may be deemed necessary to meet the end of justice.”
2. I have heard learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt for the petitioner at length and in great detail.
3. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt that the documents were shown to the prosecution witness in the witnessbox by learned APP conducting the trial which were not collected during the investigation but the Court did not admit the documents in evidence. He further submitted that the documents were produced with the list by the Public Prosecutor conducting the trial and, therefore, the Court was required to give tentative exhibit to the document but did not give exhibit numbers and, therefore, the order is bad in law and, therefore, the present revision application is filed.
He relied on the decision in the case of Y.S.Sharawat, Asstt. Collector of Customs, Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch, Bombay vs. Firoz Hasan Ali Rupani and others reported in 1992 Cri. L.J. 360 and another decision in the case of Haji Mohammed Hussain Nazir Mohammed Luhar vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in 2002(C) GLR 301.
4. As reproduced in the earlier part of this order, the petitioner has not categorically stated as to which order he has challenged and, therefore, the prayer made in the revision application is vague and hence the revision application cannot be entertained.
It also appears that by filing application Exh.69 certain documents were produced when the witness was being examined by the prosecution. It is not in dispute that those documents were not part of the evidence collected during the course of investigation. The copy of application Exh.69 annexed with the compilation also indicates that these documents were not sought to be produced by the prosecution but it was produced by the alleged victim. The record does not indicate that the learned APP sought permission to produce the documents on behalf of the prosecution. It is settled position that the prosecution is required to follow the procedure to produce the evidence during recording of evidence when such evidence is not collected during investigation and is not a part of chargesheet. The record does not indicate that proper procedure was followed for production of evidence which was not collected during the course of investigation. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was justified in refusing to admit the documents sought to be produced by Exh.69. Hence, the learned trial Judge did not commit any jurisdictional error and, therefore, the revision application cannot be entertained.
6. In the result, the revision application fails and stands dismissed.
( BANKIM N. MEHTA, J. ) syed/