ORDER :

1. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th March, 2013, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 124 of 2013. By his said order, the learned Judge set aside the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the prayer made on behalf of the accused to confront P.W. 1 with a statement made by him in a Television interview on Zee News on 8th February, 2013, after the filing of the charge-sheet, for the purpose of contradicting him with his previous statement in order to test his veracity and to impeach his credibility, as provided for under Section 146 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

2. The learned Solicitor General urged that the view taken by the High Court could result in serious consequences in the matter of holding of trials on account of the fact that the attempt to bring in evidence by way of cross-examination of a prosecution witness, in regard to statements made after the filing of the charge-sheet, would be contrary to the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act as well as Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ['Code', for short].

3. In the instant case, on the basis of certain statements made by P.W. 1, the complainant, and other material, a charge-sheet had been filed by the Investigating Authorities against the Respondent. After the charge-sheet had been filed, the complainant appears to have given a T.V. interview on Zee News on the same subject. In the said circumstances, the question which arises is, whether, under the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act, a subsequent statement made after the filing of the charge-sheet could be treated as a "previous statement'' and be utilized for the purposes of Section 145 thereof. For the sake of reference, Section 145 of the Evidence Act is extracted hereinbelow:

45. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.----- A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.

4. The learned Solicitor General also referred to the provisions of Section 162 of the Code, from which he pointed out that the statement made to the police under Section 161 of the Code was not to be signed and, in any event, no statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of the investigation should, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it, nor should any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as indicated in the section itself The learned Solicitor General pointed out that, in the proviso to Sub-section (1), it has been indicated that, when any witness is called by the prosecution in such inquiry or trial, whose statement has been reduced into writing, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act, and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the reexamination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination. The learned Solicitor General sought to emphasise the fact that the aforesaid provisions all indicate that, for the purposes of the prosecution witnesses, statements made prior to the filing of the charge-sheet could be used for the purpose of either Section 145 of the Evidence Act or Section 161 of the Code. According to him, the scheme of the Code as well as the Indian Evidence Act clearly indicates that only such statements, as made by th