Dr. Anshuman, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 14.09.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 535 of 2012 in connection with Gaurichak P.S. Case No. 74 of 2011 dated 01.05.2011 under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. whereby and whereunder learned court below has rejected the petition dated 14.09.2016 stating that the defence side can not contradict the statement recorded in case diary, however he may contradict the present statement from the case diary. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act is very much clear on this issue and it categorically states that: 4. Section 145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing. “A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.” 5. Counsel for the State submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court dt. 14.09.2016 (Annexure-1). Counsel further submits that the case diary is a document in which the materials relating to investigation has been collected by the investigating officials. It is not the material for the purpose of defence. Counsel further submits that as per the law, the materials which has been collected by the prosecution shall come on the record of the case through prosecution witness and the prosecution materials and then only right is vested under law upon the defence to put question by way of cross-examination, in the form it comes through the prosecution materials on the record of the case. Counsel for the state further submits that the defence is not permitted to start putting question directly showing the case diary. 6. Counsel for the state further submits that the defence is not permitted to start putting question directly showing the case diary. 6. After going through the argument, records and position of law, Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act is very much clear which empowers the defence to put cross-examination as to previous statements in writing, in the opinion of this court for the present case cross-examination as to previous statement is in writing does not means the previous statement in writing written in the case diary rather the meaning of the word previous statement in writing means the writing which has come in the evidence of the prosecution witness and in this view of the matter, this court finds that there is no infirmity in the order dated 14.09.2016 and therefore, the order passed by the trial court is hereby affirmed and the present criminal revision is hereby dismissed. 7. It is made clear that dismissal of this petition shall not debarred the petitioner to take cross-examination. It shall only debarred the petitioner to cross-examination from the content of the case diary but he has still right to cross-examination of the statements in writing in the prosecution evidence. 8. With this view of the matter, the present Criminal Revision application is hereby dismissed.