N.M. Kasliwal, J. - (1.) A short interesting question of law is involved in this case. The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Ministry of Commerce; Government of India, New Delhi, the non-petitioner No. 1, filed a complaint against the accused petitioner in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jaipur under Section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) it is not disputed that the investigation in the case was made by Special Police establishment, fraude suad-(ii), New Delhi, as envisaged under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. 1973. The accused petitioners submitted an application before the trial-court on 2.1.80 with a prayer that statement of the prosecution witnesses may not be recorded till the police statements are produced in the court and sufficient time is made available to the defence to obtain photostat copy at their own expense and cross-examination prepared with respect to these statements. It was further prayed that the authorities mentioned in para 5 of the application be directed to produce or cause them to be produced in the court, the police statements of the witnesses mentioned in Annexure:-A, appended to the application. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 10.12.1980, dismissed the above application. The learned Magistrate considered the various authorities cited before him and though relied upon decision of this Court reported in W.L.N. 1975 page 137, and took the view that the accused persons were entitled to get the copies of the documents, but dismissed the application on the ground that previously on two occasions such prayer had been rejected by his predecessor. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate, the accused petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in this court.
(2.) Mr. Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that it was a case where the investigation was conducted by the police under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. and it was only in view of Section 6 of the Imports and Exports Act, 1947 that the complaint was filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Section 6 laid-down that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 5 except upon complaint in writing made by an Officer, authorised in this behalf by the Central Government, by general or special order. It is contended that in view of the provision of Section 6, the complaint was required to be filed by an officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government, otherwise there was no difference in this complaint and police report.
(3.) Mr. Mathur further submitted that it is very necessary to furnish the copies of the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in order to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. Reliance is placed on Bakhtowar Singh v. The State : 1951 RLW 186 - Nany v. The State : 1953 RLW 465 , Ajit Singh v. Ram Singh, 1975 WLN (UC) 271 and State of Rajasthan v. Moti Singh and others, 1975 WLN 137. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court itself in another case gave a direction to the learned Public Prosecutor to file the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. vide Annexure K filed along with the petition.;