INDER CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar Dist. Sri Ganganagar dated 10. 12. 1983 passed in Cr. Case No. 32 of 1983 State vs. Ipderchand and Another.

(2.) IN the instant case, a preliminary objection was raised by the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. H. R. Panwar appearing on behalf of the State, to the effect that the impugned order is interlocutory order, therefore, no criminal Revision is maintainable. There is a Substance in the argument of Mr. H. R. Panwar, learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) IT is urged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar has rejected the aforesaid application by his order dated 10. 12. 83, which is per se illegal, and if the impugned order is allowed to exist, a serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, tape recorded evidence itself is a primary and direct evidence, which is admissible under Sec. 7, 8 and 155 (3) read with Sec. 146 of the Indian Evidence Act. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the statement made by PW 5 Chhaganlal recorded in the tape recorder produced before the Court, ought to have been treated as previous statement of the witness, which can be used not only to corroborate the evidence given by the witness in court but also to contradict his deposition.