- (1.)THE applicant-State of gujarat has filed this Criminal Revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer that this court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 16-4-2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. 6, Vadodara below application Exh. 292 in Sessions Case No. 172 of 2004.
(2.)BY the impugned order, the learned sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 6, vadodara, permitted the defence to produce a C. D. which contains an interview of the victim at the end of a local T. V. Channel. The learned Judge further permitted the defence to produce the C. D. and play the same on a C. D. Player before the Court so that the Court may be able to listen to the questions which were put by the local T. V. Channel. By the said application Exh. 292, the learned advocate for the accused stated that in the aforesaid matter the cross-examination of witness Ashutosh is going on. After the incident Ashutosh has given an interview in local T. V. Channel regarding the incident in question. When the attention of the witness was drawn towards it, he stated that he did not remember anything. This piece of evidence was in connection with the incident in question. In view of the same, his statement is recorded to show the said c. D. and therefore, the learned advocate for the accused has stated that they may be allowed to produce the said C. D. and the C. D. player in the Court and therefore prayed that during the cross-examination of ashutosh, the Court may permit the recorded T. V. interview be shown in this behalf.
2. 1 The learned Judge has passed order in connection with the offences punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code which provides wrongful confinement. Sec. 364-A which provides kidnapping for ransom. Sec. 506 (2) which provides punishment for criminal intimidation. Sec. 120-B of the i. P. C. which provides punishment of criminal conspiracy and under Secs. 25 (l) (a) and 25 (1) (b) of the Arms Act wherein the learned sessions Judge was pleased to allow the application Exh. 292 filed by the accused.

(3.)THE facts giving rise to this application are as under :- !
3. 1 It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Not 1 Shailendra Kamalkishore pande, accused No. 2 Shasanka Madanlal goyel, accused No. 3 Ruturaj Bhudeshwar bhoda, accused No. 4 Somashish dipakkumar Adhyapak and accused No. 5 karsihma Bipinbhai Jadhav, all these accused persons kidnapped a minor child namely Ashutosh Ashokbhai Shah who was 14 years old at the time of commission of offence i. e. on 15-12-2003. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15-12-2003 the victim Ashutosh went to school by an auto rickshaw around 7. 30 a. m. along with other students. While proceeding to the school, the accused Nos. 1 to 4 came with lethal weapon like Tamancha, iron pipe, iron patti etc. , in a Maruti Car and kidnapped the minor.

3. 2 A police complaint was lodged by the rickshaw driver Shri Shivabhai Mahjibhai parmar with Gorva Police Station on 15th december, 2003. The accused persons took the minor Ashutosh to Chandravila apartment, Vadodara where they kept the minor from 15th December, 2003 to 20th december, 2003. The accused persons contacted the parents and demanded a sum of Rs. 1. 00 crore for releasing the minor, through telephone calls from various places. On 20th december, 2003. the police find out the location of the victim through accused No. 5 and at 11. 00 to 11. 30 p. m. , the police rescued the minor. At that time the accused no. 1 was present with the minor victim and police arrested the accused Nos. 1 and 5. Thereafter, during the course of investigation the police also arrested the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

3. 3 After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vadodara, who in turn committed the case before the Sessions Court at Vadodara, The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to frame the charges and necessary trial has commenced in this case.

3. 4 During the course of trial, number of witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. While cross-examining the minor victim Ashutosh by the defence side, an application was submitted by the accused side Exh. 292 and prayed to show the interview cassette of victim Ashutosh and his father tb the minor Ashutosh, which was taken by the local news channel namely tnn" on 21-12-2003. Some part of this interview was telecast by the TNN News (local news channel ).

' 3. 5 ft appears that the defence wanted the trial Court to watch the CD and hear the entire conversation which took place between the victim and the local TV channel whd were 'putting certain questions to the victim immediately after he was rescued by the police. The prosecution vehemently objected and opposed the application contending that it was not permissible for the accused persons to adduce any such evidence in the form of a CD and also contended that it would not be open for the trial Court to watch the CD on a CD player. The prosecution also contended that the evidence of the prosecution was not yet over and if the accused persons wanted to lead any evidence they. could lead only after they enter the stage of defence and that too after satisfying the Court as regards the genuineness and the accuracy of the CD. It was submitted that the subject-matter recorded in the cd has to be shown to be relevant according to rules and relevancy found in the evidence Act. It was also submitted that accuracy of what was actually recorded had to be proved by the maker of the record and circumstantial evidence, direct or circumstantial, had to be there so as to rule out possibilities of tampering with the record. Trial Court Findings :

3. 6 The trial Court, after considering the submissions of the defence as well as the prosecution, came to the conclusion that any statement made by the victim after he was rescued by the police in connection with the prosecution case can be termed ad his previous statement which would be a very relevant fact and the witness can be contradicted with his previous statement to impeach his credibility and the veracity of the prosecution case. The trial' Court also came to the conclusion that for a just and fair trial, the Court should not shut any evidence which would have a bearing on the entire case. The trial Court also recorded a finding relying upon the decision of the Honble supreme Court in the matter of Zahira shaikh v. State of Gujarat reported in 2004 (2) GLR 1078 : (2004 Cri LJ 2050) that if any fact relating to the truth of the prosecution case can be brought on record by any means, then the Court should not prevent the party from adducing such evidence. The trial Court finally discussing Sec. 145 and sec. 155 of the Evidence Act allowed the application and permitted the defence to produce the CD and play the CD on a CD player before the Court.

3. 7 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Sessions judge, Fast Track Court No. 6, Vadodara, the revision application was filed by the State somewhere on 1-5-2007.

3. 8 When the matter was placed for hearing before this Court, on 2-5-2007 this Court has passed a short but speaking order and also granted interim relief regarding stay of implementation, operation and execution of the order dated 16-4-2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. 6, Vadodara in application Exh. 292 in sessions Case No. 172 of 2004. In the said order it was stated that the interim relief was granted only qua regarding application exh. 292 in Sessions Case No. 172 of 2004 and it is open for the learned Judge to proceed further and examine other witnesses except Mr. Ashutosh Ashokbhai Shah and interim relief to continue till 7-5-2007. Thereafter this Court pleased to pass the orders on 9-5-2007, 11-5-2007 and 16-5-2007.

3. 9 The matter was placed for hearing before this Court on 13-6-2007. Hence Rule. I have heard Mr. K. C. Shah, learned APP on behalf of the State of Gujarat. On behalf of accused I have heard Mr. Yogesh S. Lakhani, learned. advocate and on behalf of original complainant I have heard Mr. J. B. Pardiwala, learned advocate who has tried to assist the Court as important and interesting question of law arises. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.