STATE OF ORISSA Vs. AMITAVA PRASAD DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question involved in this criminal revision is whether at the instance of the accused the statement of a witness can be recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE opposite party is being prosecuted for an offence under Section 366. Indian Penal Code. The prosecution was started on the Fast Information Report lodged by Padmabati Debata, the mother of the victim girl. The report was lodged on 20 -8 -1978 at the Capital Police Station. The allegation in the report was that Dali @ Kamalini, the minor daughter of the informant, had been kidnapped by the opposite party for immoral purposes. On the same day the opposite party was arrested and the victim girl was rescued from a canteen run by the opposite party near the Rabindra Mandap. The victim girl was, however, not restored to her mother and was detained at the Police Station. On 24 -8 -1978 Padmabati filed a complaint petition against the Officer -in -charge of the Police Station alleging unlawful detention of her daughter at the Police Station and praying for her immediate production in Court. The victim girl was produced in Court on 28 -8 -1978. On that day the opposite party moved the S.D.J.M. for getting the statement of the girl recorded under Section 164. Code of Criminal Procedure on the allegation that during the period of her detention at the Police Station the girl was being tutored by the police to make false statements. The learned S.D.J.M. rejected the prayer on the ground that the accused has no locus standi to ask for recording of statement of a witness under Section 164. Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) IT is urged in this criminal revision that the statement of a witness cannot be recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of the accused.