PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. VEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petition is presented by the Public Prosecutor against an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Salem in the following circumstances: In C.C. No. 103 of 1928 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Hosur, certain of the prosecution witnesses had been examined and cross-examined. Application was then made on behalf of the accused under Section 162, Criminal P.C., for copies of the statements which these witnesses had made to the police. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate refused the request on the ground that the proper occasion for making it had gone by. The learned Sessions Judge, however, pointed out that the accused would have a right of further cross-examination after the framing of a charge, and in view of this circumstance ruled that copies should be given.

(2.) The point not dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge, but raised here, is whether an accused person can apply for, and be granted, such copies (where not already applied for and granted) at any time before the cross-examination after charge takes place, or whether ho must wait until at least the witness is in the box and the cross-examination due to begin. Mr. Ganapathi for the learned Public Prosecutor contends that this latter condition must be satisfied.

(3.) So far as appears-and I have not had the advantage of hearing the other side-this precise point has not been dealt with in any reported case. In Peramaswami Rayudu, in re Krishnan and Wallace, JJ. held that, since the purpose of furnishing the copy is to contradict the witness, the witness must already have made a statement which lays him open to contradiction. Accordingly, application can only be made, and a copy granted when the witness is under cross-examination. This however, only lays down the procedure so far as the first cross-examination is concerned. The question was answered in very much the same way by a Calcutta Bench in Madari Sikdar V/s. Emperor . The learned Judges say not only that the witness must be under cross-examination but that the cross-examination must lay the foundation for the suggestion that, the evidence given by the witness in Court is contradicted by his statement recorded under Section 161, Criminal P.C. and it is only then that the accused is entitled to ask the Judge to refer to the writing and grant him copies,