Judgment : 1. The proceeding is filed to challenge the order made by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Sessions Case No. 23 of 2012. The case is filed for offences punishable under sections 498-A, 306 r/w. 34 etc. of Indian Penal Code against the husband and relatives of deceased Shridevi Nigule, who died due to burn injuries on 18.10.2010. 2. After framing of charge, the application, Exh. 23, came to be moved by prosecution and the request was made for giving directions to the Investigating Officer to produce the two dying declarations of aforesaid deceased. The petitioner was not accepting the notices and so, the notice was sent through Superintendent of Police. Petitioner, then appeared before the Additional Sessions Judge. He informed that there were two such dying declarations, but they were not produced along with chargesheet and they must be present in File "B" in the Police Station. He undertook to produce two dying declarations in the proceeding. The original dying declarations were missing and the petitioner could not produce the two dying declarations. One dying declaration was recorded by Police Officer and other was recorded by Executive Magistrate. He produced zerox copy of dying declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate. At Exh. 27, then application came to be moved by learned prosecutor and action was requested against the petitioner. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as he did not comply with the order of the Court in which direction was given to him to produce the dying declarations. The petitioner informed that he had already produced a copy of dying declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate. He informed in writing that as per the record of Kaij Police Station, where he was attached at the relevant time, the two dying declarations, which were recorded through Ambajogai Police Station, were sent to Kaij Police Station and they were received by Head Constable R.K. Pawar of Kaij Police Station. He informed that the dying declarations were probably with Pawar. He also produced copy of a letter sent to Kaij Police Station by Ambajogai Police Station on 14.4.2010, in which it was informed that the deceased had given dying declaration, but she had not blamed anybody. However, neither the original dying declaration recorded by Police Officer nor its copy could be produced by the petitioner. 3. He also produced copy of a letter sent to Kaij Police Station by Ambajogai Police Station on 14.4.2010, in which it was informed that the deceased had given dying declaration, but she had not blamed anybody. However, neither the original dying declaration recorded by Police Officer nor its copy could be produced by the petitioner. 3. In view of aforesaid circumstances, the learned A.P.P. attached to the Court of Sessions, filed application at Exh. 29 and requested the Court to make Investigating Officer, the present petitioner, accused in the case for non production of the dying declarations. The petitioner was heard and the Presiding Officer passed a detailed order on Exh. 29. The Presiding Officer has discussed the aforesaid circumstances and has observed that there is prima facie case against the petitioner to make out offences punishable under section 201 and 204 of I.P.C. Process was issued against him. Prior to issuing process, charge was already framed against the husband and his relatives and the Court expressed that the charge was to be amended for including charge against the present petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for petitioner argued much in respect of the interpretation of section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code. He cited two reported cases like (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 250 [Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.] and 2002 (Cri.Supp.) Bom.C.R. 912 Bombay High Court [Ashok Ananda Hange Vs. State of Maharashtra]. In the second case cited supra, this Court has observed that the documents like the case diary cannot be shown to the defence. It is observed that in view of the provisions of section 173 of Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer is expected to produce only those documents on which prosecution would rely for proving the offences and so, if some statements recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. are not produced, the defence cannot get a benefit of such circumstance and he cannot compel the State for production of copies of such statements. The observations are altogether on different point. There is no discussion about the value of dying declaration and necessity of production of dying declaration in the Court. Dying declaration is substantive piece of evidence and nobody can be allowed to conceal such document in such a case. The observations are altogether on different point. There is no discussion about the value of dying declaration and necessity of production of dying declaration in the Court. Dying declaration is substantive piece of evidence and nobody can be allowed to conceal such document in such a case. This Court has no hesitation to observe that even when the dying declaration is not against the accused like husband and his relatives, the dying declaration needs to be produced in the Court by the prosecution. In view of the weight, which can be given to the dying declaration, if it transpires to the Court that there was such dying declaration, it becomes the duty of the Court also to see that such record is produced in the case. It is up to the Court to decide the effect of such record. It may help the accused. In view of this position and the power of the Court in this regard, case of Bombay High Court can be of no use to the petitioner. 5. In the first case, the Apex Court has discussed section 319 of Cr.P.C. It is observed by the Apex Court that power under section 319 of Cr.P.C. is available to the trial Court, J.M.F.C. and Sessions Court; it is discretionary power and it needs to be exercised cautiously and not as a matter of routein. There cannot be any dispute over this proposition. The learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court through section 319 of Cr.P.C. and he submitted that in view of language of section 319 (1) of Cr.P.C., unless, the trial has begun and the evidence is recorded, Court cannot use the power given under section 319 of Cr.P.C. This submission cannot be accepted as it is. In the para No. 17 in the case cited supra, the Apex Court has made it clear that such power can be exercised during any inquiry or trial of any offence. It appears that in the present case the charge was framed against other accused and after that the application came to be moved by A.P.P. The purpose behind the wordings used in section 319 of Cr.P.C. is to show the duty of the Court to ascertain that there is some material on the basis of which a person, who is not chargesheeted, need to be made accused in the case. If the purpose is served in any manner during inquiry or trial, the Court can use the provision of section 319 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, after making of the application by learned A.P.P., the petitioner appeared before the Court and made statement that there was such record and the record must be in File "B" of the papers of investigation. The submissions made by the petitioner show that he had knowledge about the existence of such two dying declarations. In view of these circumstances, it is not open to petitioner to say that he was not expected to file dying declarations in the Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court through record like copy of inward register and copies of correspondence made by Ambajogai Police Station to Kaij Police Station. This record shows that on 14.10.2010 some correspondence was made along with which the dying declaration of Shridevi was sent to Kaij Police Station. It was received by one Police Head Constable of Kaij Police Station. It appears that, A.D. was registered after the death of Shridevi due to burn injuries and one Head Constable was making inquiry of A.D. On 19.10.2010 mother of deceased gave report against the husband and his relatives and then crime came to be registered. It is not disputed that the present petitioner was in-charge of the investigation right from beginning till the date of filing of chargesheet. In view of this circumstance, it needs to be presumed that in ordinary course, the papers of inquiry of A.D. were taken over by the present petitioner from the Police Head Constable of the police station. In view of these circumstances also, it is not open to the petitioner to say that the record was received by the Police Station or other officer and so, he cannot be asked to produce the same in the case. Thus, there is no force in the defences taken by the petitioner. 7. It is serious lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer. He was expected to be fair. Such incidents are increasing. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that Sessions Court has not committed error in using section 319 of Cr.P.C. and making the present petitioner accused. Atleast section 204 of I.P.C. can be safely used against the present petitioner. 8. In the result, the petition stands dismissed.