HARI DEV SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution has come in for serious criticism in this case.

(2.) The statement made by Public Witness I Hari Chand, which initiated the proceedings, was reduced to writing. That was the first information re- port. Public Witness 8 had no business to get it typed. I accept the contention that Exhibit Public Witness 1/K cannot be used as a piece of evidence for any purpose in this case.

(3.) The second contention raised is that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is hit by the provisions of section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That contention is sought to be substantiated by relying upon the observations contained in Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma and others v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 S.C. 104(1). The contention can best be estimated in terms of the provisions of sections 161 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are:-