Case diary of another matter may be summoned for trial, but use of statements remains restricted by evidence rules.

Section 172 applies only to the police diary of the case under inquiry or trial and does not authorise summoning the diary of another case for the accused's benefit. However, a diary from another case may be summoned under Section 91(1) if the court finds its production necessary or desirable for the trial. Any previous statement contained in that diary remains subject to the restrictions governing use of police statements under Section 162 and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. The appeal was rejected because the impugned orders were sustainable on that legal basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the case diary of another case, not under inquiry or trial before the court, could be summoned and used to confront a witness with his previous statement, and whether such use was controlled by the provisions governing police statements and case diaries.

Analysis: The right to cross-examine a witness by reference to previous statements exists under the Evidence Act, and in criminal trials the use of statements recorded by the police is controlled by the Code. A statement recorded under Section 161 may be used only in the manner permitted by Section 162 and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Section 172 is confined to the police diary of the case under inquiry or trial and does not authorise summoning the diary of another case for the accused's benefit. However, a case diary is a document within the wider language of Section 91(1), and if the court considers its production necessary or desirable for the purposes of the trial, it may summon the diary of another case. When so summoned, the limitations of Section 172 do not govern its production, though the use of any previous statement contained in it remains subject to Section 162 of the Code and Section 145 of the Evidence Act.

Conclusion: A case diary of another case may be summoned under Section 91(1) of the Code if the court finds production necessary or desirable for the trial, but the statement within it can be used only subject to the restrictions governing use of Section 161 statements.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected because the impugned orders were sustainable on the correct legal basis, and the accused were not barred from seeking summons of the other case diary through Section 91 of the Code.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 172 of the Code governs only the diary of the case under inquiry or trial, but Section 91(1) empowers the court to summon a case diary of another case as a document for trial purposes, subject to the evidentiary restrictions on use of police statements.

---