AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 233 wordsNarain Singh ''Azad'', J.
Shri Parag Chaturvedi appears for the petitioners.
Shri Yogesh Dhande, P.L. for the State.
Arguments heard.
The order dated 26th October, 1999 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sehora, Dist. Jabalpur has turned down the petitioners request for supply of copies of statement recorded u/s 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, placing reliance on Ashok Dubey v. State of M. P. reported in 1980 JLJ 250.
On consideration of this referred case, it is noted that the Division Bench of this Court has expressed no opinion on the point, whether the statements recorded u/s 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code are required to be furnished to the accused as of right, because in that case, the statements were already supplied and the question became of academic discussion, as pointed out in paragraph 48 at page 267.
It is found clearly explained by this Court in Charls Victor v. State of M. P. reported in M. P. Weekly Notes 2000 (1) 180 at page 282 that the statements recorded u/s 174, Criminal Procedure Code (Marg) should be supplied to the accused as they are previous statements.
Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and it is directed that the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code be supplied to the petitioners promptly, before their rights to cross-examine these witnesses, is over.
C.C. as per rules.