CHENNAKESAV REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE nub of the novel problem that is provoked or posed for resolution in this case is whether an approver is a person proposed to be examined by the prosecution falling within the sweep of section 173 (4), Criminal Procedure code, and a statutory obligation is thereby cast on the prosecution under section 173 (4) Criminal Procedure Code, to supply a copy of the former statement recorded from him during the course of the investigation while he was an accused person.

( 2 ) THE history of the cause and the commission of crime leading to the prosecution is this

( 3 ) THE first accused in the case was the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad during 1965. The second accused was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Panjagutta police Station, Hyderabad at the relevant period. He was tendered pardon under section 8 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, and examined as approver. He has been examined by the prosecution as P. W. 5. The 3rd accused is a contractor and is a close friend of A-1.

( 4 ) A-1 wanted to secure a plot of land in Banjara Hills for constructing a house. D. W. 7 was the Deputy commissioner of Police, Law and order at that time. At his instance p. W. 5

Click Here to Read the rest of this document