ORDER J.G. Chitre, J. The petitioners are assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order which has been passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow in the matter of Session trial No. 336/92 dt. 29-7-1994 by which the learned A.S.J. rejected the prayer made by the petitioners for the purpose of calling the statement of witnesses recorded in the inquiry in context with the accidental death entry register, in relation to the death of deceased Jaisinha who died on 4-2-1992 at Mhow. Shri Maheshwari Learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners pointed out that at the time of moving the said application for calling those documents in the Court, number of the said accidental death inquiry was also specified which happens to be 5/92, Police Station Mhow. Shri Maheshwari further submitted that as those documents were not produced in the court, he was prevented in taking the advantage of provisions of section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act while cross-examining the witnesses. Shri Maheshwari submitted that a prayer was made to call the register which was bearing the entry in respect of the despatch of copy of FIR to the Magistrate immediately after it was recorded by the concerned Police Station. He submitted that the said register was also necessary for the purpose of cross-examination, in view of section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. He submitted that the learned trial Judge did not notice the relevancy of those documents for the cross examination in view of the provisions of section 145 of the Evidence Act. He submitted that the learned trial Judge misdirected himself towards the provisions of section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only and committed an error of rejecting the said application. He submitted that in the interest of justice the said application should have been allowed by the learned trial Judge and as it has not been done, by setting aside the order which has been put to challenge in this revision petition, this Court be pleased to direct the prosecution to produce those documents. Shri Prakash Verma learned Dy. G.A. appearing for the State submitted that the application submitted by the petitioners was vague and was not specifying the detailed information. He pointed out that the petitioners were not themselves sure about the statement recorded during the said inquiry in respect of the accidental death. Shri Prakash Verma learned Dy. G.A. appearing for the State submitted that the application submitted by the petitioners was vague and was not specifying the detailed information. He pointed out that the petitioners were not themselves sure about the statement recorded during the said inquiry in respect of the accidental death. He further submitted that it is not made clear whether such inquiry was made or otherwise. I dismiss the submissions advanced by Shri Verma for the prosecution by upholding the submissions of Shri Maheshwari for the reasons stated as under: (i) Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act gives an important right to the accused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses in context with their previous statements recorded, if those statements are relevant to the cause of the trial. In the present matter the petitioners are facing the prosecution in context with the death of Jaisinha and therefore, the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of inquiry in respect of the alleged accidental death, happens to be relevant. Instead of that, learned trial Judge mis-directed himself towards the provisions of section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, only. It may have been on account of no submissions advanced on the point of section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. Submission of Shri Maheshwari on the said point while arguing this revision petition, cannot be ignored because after all the courts are meant for administration of justice; and maintenance of the course of the trial in accordance with law. I dismiss the submissions advanced by Shri Verma indicating that there is no information supplied by the petitioners whether an inquiry was conducted in respect of the accidental death of said Jaisinha. It has to be noted that the petitioners have pointed out that the accidental death register No. was 5/92 (locally called as Marg) it means that an accidental death entry was made in accident death register. When such an entry was made, an inquiry must have been done in context with that. Therefore, it cannot lie in the mouth of prosecution to say that information was insufficient. The trial Court should also have taken note of that. When such an entry was made, an inquiry must have been done in context with that. Therefore, it cannot lie in the mouth of prosecution to say that information was insufficient. The trial Court should also have taken note of that. When the petitioners are facing the prosecution for the death of said Jaisinha, the statement of the witnesses who are likely to be cross-examined in the said trial becomes relevant because those are the statements coming under the category of "Previous statement". In every session trial, the prosecution has to produce all evidence which is necessary for the purpose of unfolding the truth, in the interest of justice. The public prosecutor, is entrusted with the duty of conducting the prosecution for public good and that too in the interest of justice. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor cannot suppress the information which is relevant to the cause for which the accused are facing trial. He has to be fair to the accused also as he is duty-bound to put the case of the prosecution for bidding for conviction against the accused in public interest. After all he is a "public prosecutor". (ii) The register which embodies the entry in respect of despatch of the copy of FIR to the Magistrate in view of section 157, Criminal Procedure Code is quite important in the criminal trials connected with the congnizable offences. The accused may not get certified copy of such entry in the said register within short time. Therefore, if the accused makes a prayer to the court for calling such record for perusal and if necessary for cross-examination of the concerned witnesses by confronting him with it, the court should not refuse to call such register from the police station unlesss the court finds it unnecessary exercise. Accused are entitled to demonstrate before the Court that provisions of section 157, Criminal Procedure Code have not been complied with. (iii) It is the duty of every court conducting the trial to enable both prosecution as well as defence to have the access to the documents which are relevant to the trial and to the mission of finding truth in the criminal trial. (iii) It is the duty of every court conducting the trial to enable both prosecution as well as defence to have the access to the documents which are relevant to the trial and to the mission of finding truth in the criminal trial. If such party is unable to get the certified copy of such documents or wants to have a perusal of the court of such original documents, in the interest of justice, the Court should not deny such a prayer unless it finds it to be totally irrelevant to the trial. None can be punished without due process of law and due process of law implies that in such trial the person coming before it as an accused gets full opportunity of defending by legal procedure. Therefore, if the accused makes a prayer to the court for calling some documents which are necessary to be perused by the court for the decision of the trial, it is desirable that courts give due attention to such prayer. Thus the petition is allowed. The order which has been passed by the trial Court is set aside. The trial Court is directed to summon the investigating agency to produce those documents before the court for enabling the petitioner/accused to defend themselves by using relevant provisions of law as indicated above. The petitioners be permitted to use those documents at the time of cross-examination of concerned witnesses in view of section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and if they desire for the purpose of corroborating the statement of the relevant witnesses in view of the provisions of section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, if necessary, and if they enter on their defence. If the application is made, the court should permit to have a certified copy of those documents on payment of charges if those documents are not privileged documents in view of the relevant provisions of Indian Evidence Act. Final Result : Allowed