JUDGMENT A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. In a trial which was registered as sessions trial in the year 2002, several legal filibusters have occurred resulting into protraction of trial till this date i.e. over a period of 13 years. Now, in the instant application, there is one more legal filibuster namely; whether after reconstruction of the record, which was torn, the reconstructed record would become primary evidence? Obviously, it would not. But then the learned trial Judge has held that the said record reconstructed by the office for want of evidence would certainly become a primary evidence with which I do not agree. There is, therefore, merit in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant. 3. It is not in dispute that the prosecution realizing the difficulty, filed an application Exh.202 for leading secondary evidence or rather for permission to lead the secondary evidence. The grievance made by Mr. Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel was rejected by the learned trial Judge and held that the reconstructed record would constitute a primary evidence. Mr. Mardikar then submitted that order of rejection of Exh.202 has not been challenged by the prosecution. Therefore, this Court would not be in a position to deal with the said order on Exh.202. 4. As stated earlier, the trial is of the year 2002 for offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. It is being procrastinated for one or the other reason for such a long time. It is not that the applicants are responsible for protraction of the trial but then the fact remains that the trial is of the year 2002 and must come to an end at some point of time. Since I have already held that the reasons recorded by the learned trial Judge about reconstructed record becoming a primary evidence is illegal, the necessary consequence or the sequitur is that the application Exh.202 must be allowed and in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. I hold that the application Exh.202 for leading secondary evidence is liable to be allowed. 5. For the reasons given by me above, inter alia, that loss of Court record and the reconstruction thereof is an act of the Court, actus curiae neminem gravabit, this Court is under a duty to exercise its inherent power in the interest of justice. 5. For the reasons given by me above, inter alia, that loss of Court record and the reconstruction thereof is an act of the Court, actus curiae neminem gravabit, this Court is under a duty to exercise its inherent power in the interest of justice. That leads me to pass the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Application No. 745 of 2015 is partly allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 12.8.2015 below Exh.183 is set aside and it is held that the reconstructed record by office of the Court does not become a primary evidence. (iii) Application Exh.202 for leading secondary evidence is allowed and it is held that the prosecution is entitled to lead the secondary evidence on the basis of permission from this Court. (iv) The trial shall now recommence and shall be completed within a period of four months from today.