SANJAY SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused filed this revision against the order of the Magistrate rejecting their prayer for supply of copies of statements of some witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution at the trial. THE revision is being disposed of finally with the consent of the parties.

(2.) THE facts are that these seven revisionists are being prosecuted in connection with murder under sections 302, 120-B IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Some of the offences are with the aid of section 34 IPC. THE Magistrate took cognizance and copies of the statements of the witnesses were given to the accused. THEre are ,1-78 witnesses, whom the prosecution proposes to examine, but copies of their statements were not given to the accused THE case of the State was that they are witness ess of formal nature and their statements were not recorded under section 161 CrPC. THE accused requested the Magistrate that the State should be ordered to give copies of these statements to the accused. THE learned Magistrate rejected the prayer saying that the statements of these witnesses were not recorded and only copies of those statements, which are recorded under section 161 CrPC, are given. It is against this order of the Magistrate that the present revision has been filed.

(3.) THE 1973 Code put a bar on the power of revision in order to facilitate expeditious disposal of cases, but in section 482 CrPC it was provided that nothing in this Code, which would include section 397 (2), shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court. On a harmonious construction it should be held that the power provided under section 397 (2) operates only in exercise of revisional power of the High Court, meaning thereby that the High Court will have no power to interfere in relation to any interlocutory order. But, in such a case the inherent powers will come into play there being no other provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. In case the impugned order clearly brings out a situation which is an abuse of the process of the court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference of the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in section 397 (2) CrPC can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court. Such cases would of course necessarily be few and far between, (Madhu Limye, 1978 AWC 96 SC). One such case can be the present one, wherein if the proceedings are allowed to go on and ultimately it is found that copies of statements should have been given, then the accused may be in a position to assail the entire trial as vitiated. Hence, this is a case where inherent power should be exercised. Even in the application of revision it has been said by the applicants that it is also being moved under section 482 CrPC.