Judgment

FAZAL ALI, J.:- This appeal by special leave has been filed by the State against the Judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 11-4-1972 by which an application for revision filed by the respondent against an order of the Special Judge framing charges against the respondent under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and I. P. C. was quashed and the case sent back to the Special Judge for considering the matter afresh after excluding the materials which according to the High Court were inadmissible in evidence. In support of the appeal, Mr. Hardy Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted a short point before us. It appears that the case of the respondent was being tried by a Special Judge who after hearing the parties passed a well reasoned order by which he framed charges against the respondent. Against this order a revision was taken to the High Court which was dismissed and the order of the Special Judge was upheld. Meanwhile, this Court decided in the case of P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras (1970) 3 SCR 931 that where the evidence relied on by the prosecution consisted of statements which are signed by the makers of the statement and are obtained under inducement, threat or promise, even if such statements were obtained even before the F. I. R. was lodged, they are inadmissible and cannot form the subject matter of a charge against the accused. In this connection, this court observed as follows :-

"............... Section 161 (1) gives him the right to examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Although bound to answer question put to him sub-sec. (2) of the section exempts a person from answering any question which would have a tendency to expose him to a penal charge or to a penalty for forfeiture. Under sub-sec. (3) the Police Officer is empowered to reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of such examination. Sec. 162 (1) expressly lays down that such a statement made in the course of an investigation if reduced into writing is not to be signed by the maker thereof and no part of such statement except as expressly provided in to be used for any purpose at any enquiry or trial in respect of any such offence under investigation at the time when the statement was made.......... All the above provisions of the Code are aimed at securing a fair investigation into the facts and circumstances of the criminal case : however serious the crime and howsoever incrimination the circumstances may be against a person supposed to be guilty of a crime the Code of Criminal Procedure aims at securing a conviction if it can be had by the use of utmost fairness on the part of officers investigating into the offence before the lodging of a charge sheet. Clearly the idea is that no one should be put to the harassment of a criminal trial unless there are good and substantial reasons for holding it."

After sometime the original Special Judge was succeeded by another Special Judge who framed charges and at that time the respondent raised the question of law that as the charges were mainly based on the statements of witnesses who had given signed statements earlier under duress or inducement, the charges should be quashed. The second Special Judge rejected the contention of the respondent and framed the charges. Against this order, the respondent filed a second revision petition before the High Court which was allowed by the impugned order of the High Court. The High Court while allowing the petition observed as follows :-

"In the result, I partially accept this revision petition and quash the charge sheet dated January 14, 1972. The Special Judge will exclude from consideration all the statements which have been recorded in violation of the provisions of Ss. 162 and 163, Cr. P. C. and which are found vitiated in the light of the observations made above. The Special Judge will also exclude Portions of the Statements recorded by the Police wh