PUNJAB STATE Vs. RAMJI DASS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is States petition for revision of the order of the Court of Shri Muni Lal Verma, Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, dated May 27, 1969, wherein he held that though he could not furnish to the accused a copy of an alleged previous statement of Assistant Sub -Inspector Kartar Singh P. W. said to have been given by him before the Deputy Superintendent of Police Richhpal Singh under Sub -section (4) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused could proceed to cross -examine the said Prosecution witness in accordance with the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act and he may apply for a copy of the relevant previous statement to the proper authority and in a proper manner for that purpose if it becomes necessary to do so.

(2.) THE petition has been contested by the learned Counsel for Mukhtiar Singh accused, who had made an application to the Court of Session for supplying a copy of the statement of Assistant Sub -Inspector Kartar Singh alleged to have been recorded by Deputy Superintendent of Police Richhpal Singh either in the police diary or otherwise. The learned Assistant Advocate -General, Punjab, who appears for the State, has submitted that the statement of Assistant Sub -Inspector Kartar Singh had neither been recorded in the police diary nor during the investigation of the criminal case but had in fact been recorded in some departmental proceeding. The learned State counsel, therefore, concedes that the purview of Sub -section (1) of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not bar the use of the statement in question by the accused, if it is otherwise permissible for him to obtain and utilise the same. It is the common case of both sides that the document in question does not fall within the four corners of Sub -section (4) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel, therefore, concede that it is no part of the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to furnish or cause to be furnished, to the accused a copy of the statement in question.