Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) Order No.306 dated 06.12.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in SC 35/11 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for production of documents and further examination of prosecution witnesses has been assailed.
(2.) Petitioner is facing trial in the instant case, inter alia, under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code. Upon conclusion of defence evidence, the matter was fixed for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner took out two applications before the trial Court seeking production of certain documents which, according to him, were relevant for a just decision of the Court. The documents sought to be produced before the trial Court was:- i) complaint lodged by the petitioner on 15.03.2008 being General Diary Entry No.900 at Metiaburz Police Station; ii) responses of HIDCO authority under the Right to Information Act relating to a plot of land measuring an area of 2.24 Cottahs in the Action Area-III/A, Category-MIGI; iii) Lock up diary, station diary, log book of vehicle no. WB 04C 4715 from 17.03.2008 to 10.04.2008, visitors' entry register of Bhawani Bhawan from 07.03.2008 to 30.06.2008, daily diary report of register from 07.03.2008 to 30.06.2008 and CCTV footage of CID, Bhawani Bhawan from 01.03.2008 to 30.06.2008. Such prayers have been turned down by the trial Court. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the General Diary of Metiaburz Police Station was necessary to show the enmity by and between the parties and the responses under RTI Act by HIDCO would improbabilize the claim of the prosecution that the said plot of land was sold to pay the ransom amount. He further submitted that the lock up register, station diary, log book of vehicle etc. were necessary to establish that the petitioner had not been taken out from the CID office in the night between 19th/20th March, 2009 or 2nd April, 2008 to effect recoveries in the course of investigation as claimed by the prosecution. He further submitted that other records like visitors' register, CCTV footage which would also show that the complainant did not visit the CID office on and from 10th March, 2008 as claimed by the prosecution.;