RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Mukul Rakesh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.).
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that out of total 28 witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses so given by the C.B.I., the copy of statements of the witnesses No. 20 to 28 have not been provided to the revisionist, therefore, those witnesses cannot be examined, strictly in accordance with law. He has referred section 173 (5) (b) of Cr.P.C., 1973 which provides that when such report in respect of a case to which Section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report, the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 of all the persons to whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. He has further submitted that in the light of sub-clause 8 of Section 173 Cr.P.C., 1973 the statements of those witnesses can be recorded at this stage.
(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the C.B.I., Sri Bireshwar Nath, has submitted that he has already apprised the learned court below that the C.B.I. has not recorded the statements of the witnesses No. 20 to 28 and has filed the application before the trial court concerned apprising that those witnesses i.e witnesses No. 20 to 28 would require to specific thing which is indicated in this letter itself. He has further submitted that since the C.B.I. has already disclosed that those witnesses i.e. witnesses No. 20 to 28 would discharge specific assignment, therefore, no prejudice would cause to the revisionist. Therefore, he has submitted that on account of non-providing the copies of the statements of the witnesses No. 20 to 28 would not vitiate the trial proceedings in any manner.;