BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The nub of the novel problem that is provoked or posed for resolution in this case is whether an approver is a person proposed to be examined by the prosecution falling within the sweep of section 173 (4), Criminal Procedure Code, and a statutory obligation is thereby cast on the prosecution under section 173(4) Criminal Procedure Code, to supply a copy of the former statement recorded from him during the course of the investigation while he was an accused person.

(2.) The history of the cause and the commission of crime leading to the prosecution is this

(3.) The first accused in the case was the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad during 1965. The second accused was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad at the relevant period. He was tendered pardon under section 8 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, and examined as approver. He has been examined by the prosecution as P. W. 5. The 3rd accused is a contractor and is a close friend of A-1.