JUDGMENT Amar Saran, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, Shri Nar Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant and Shri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate.
2. By means of this application the applicant has challenged an order dated 10.1.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Basti in ST. No. 91 of 1995 (State v. Ram Karan Arya and Ors.) whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application for summoning certain documents.
3. It has been observed in the impugned order that on 22.9.2007, an order was passed that the prosecution should be directed to search out the said documents and produce the same by the date fixed. An objection was filed to the said application by the prosecution. It is noted in the order that an earlier application Ext. 168 Kha was filed on this issue. While disposing of the said application the court observed that the report of the Superintendent of Police and that the letter of the Emergency Medical Officer through the Chief Medical Officer, which was sent on 23.11.1995, were not traceable. Hence, it was not possible to summon the said documents and that the prosecution was directed to make efforts to search out the said documents.
4. However, in the subsequent application for summoning the said documents again, the prosecution had stated that it has no knowledge as to the whereabouts of the said documents. Even the defence could not clarify as to where the said documents were present. The report of the Medico Legal Laboratory was on the record. As it was not known where the documents were, no purpose would be served in summoning the same.
5. I do not see any fault in the reasoning of the court below in this regard.
6. Learned Counsel for applicant has drawn my attention to some line in the report of the Superintendent of Police, Basti dated 267.1995, which mention* that he had made enquiries from the persons present at the spot and they stated that the shot was not fired . by the accused Ram Karan Arya, but by non-applicant Usman.
7. I do not see what is the relevancy of any such report as evidence must be adduced in court and hearsay enquiry by the police officer is of no relevance.
8. Another issue raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the report of the Emergency Medical Officer showed that the dead body was taken away by the complainant and his associates.
9. Again, I do not see the significance of the said contention.
It was rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the matter is pending since 1994 and it would result in delaying the proceedings if such a roving enquiry is permitted to take place.
10. Section 233(3) Cr.P.C. is also of no assistance to the learned Counsel for the applicant as delay will certainly entail if an additional enquiry is now conducted which would automatically result in defeating the ends of justice. Whatever benefit may accrue to the accused as a result of non-production of certain documents, it is for the trial court to assess the import of the same when it decides the trial.
11. It is also unfortunate that the applicant has not cared to inform the Court that earlier Criminal miscellaneous application No. 26183 was also filed, which is pending and concealing this fact, the present application has been filed.
The application has no force. It is accordingly rejected.
Let a copy of this order be placed on the file of Criminal miscellaneous application No. 26183 of 2007.