investigation cannot be exhibited as documents, but for if at all to confront the maker of the statements for the limited purpose as per Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Equally the so called scene observation report of the criminal case if at all only to examine the investigating officer who collected the physical evidence and question of exhibiting through somebody does not arise and so far as other document is confession cum recovery panchanama against accused no other the petitioner No.1/PW.1 concerned, the same when disputed by him but for to admit within the limited scope under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in the criminal proceeding, that cannot be made use though Section 162 (2) Cr.P.C. no way applies to Sections 27 and 32 of the Evidence Act. Thus the documents if at all to permit from the public documents covered by FIR and charge sheet, the so called crime against the election petitioner/PW.1 if at all within the limited scope to confront him therefrom under Sections 145 and 155 clause (3) of the Evidence Act, there are no grounds to recall RWs.4 and 5 but for from the consensus arrived by both sides to make use only within the limited scope to put to PW.1 by recall, this Court within the pleanary jurisdiction, instead of driving to file another application and giving further life to the litigation, permitted recall of PW.1 to cross-examine only for that purpose with reference to FIR and charge sheet by receiving the documents.
