Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 28.9.2016, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum East in S.T. No. 280 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the petitioner to search out the original missing case diary along with the original documents has been rejected. A further prayer has been made for quashing of that part of the order dated 29.6.2008, by which the prosecution evidence has been ordered to be closed and the case has been fixed for examination of the petitioner and other accused persons under section 313 of Cr.P.C.
(3.) It has been submitted by Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in the original case diary some relevant documents are available, which also include a letter issued by the Estate Officer, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee. Learned senior counsel submits that Investigating Officer of the case namely Birendra Prasad Yadav who has been examined as P.W-36 had stated about the original case diary as well as the original documents getting traceless and since such documents goes to the foundation of the dispute and are most essential for disproving the case of the prosecution, the application preferred by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. Learned senior counsel on the second prayer made by the petitioner has stated that the learned court below could not have closed the prosecution case on account of the witnesses-Sanjay Kumar Singh and Jagdish Yadav having not been produced by the prosecution and the learned trial court should have awaited their presence before closing the prosecution case. It has thus been submitted that both the applications having been rejected by the learned court below without considering the actual facts, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside on both the counts.;