Kumarayya, J.

[1] This reference is directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kovvur refusing to receive certain documents sought to be filed by the prosecution, the copies of which were not furnished to the accused before the commencement of the enquiry. The accused is an Executive Officer of Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple, Gokavaram and he was charged with an offence under Section 409, Penal Code, in relation to som6 amounts collected from the tenants of the temple.

The enquiry was started on a police report under Section 251-A, Criminal Procedure Code and a charge was framed under Section 409, Penal Code. The accused having pleaded not guilty eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution. When P.W. 9 was being examined, the prosecution sought to exhibit some registered notices alleged to have been issued by the accused to the tenants of the temple and also the replies given by some of the tenants. These are the documents, the copies of which were not supplied to the accused before the commencement of the enquiry.

The accused objected that such documents are not admissible in law at that stage. The prosecution's reply to this was that the provisions of Section 173 (4) are merely directory; that the omission "to comply with the same does not entail the penalty of rejection of the documents produced at a subsequent stage and that having regard to the provisions of Section 251-A (7) it is obligatory on the Court to take this evidence which is being produced by the prosecution. This argument did not find favour with the learned Magistrate who held that the provisions relating to the supply of copies of all the documents under Section 173 (4) of Criminal procedure Code are mandatory and such documents therefore cannot be admitted in evidence.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge is of the opinion that the provisions of Section 173 (4) are only directory and the refusal of the Magistrate to admit the evidence which he is bound to take under the provisions of Section 251-A (7) is against law. He" therefore, has recommended that this order be set aside.

[2] In my opinion, this reference does not merit acceptance. The provisions of the Section 173 (4) are introduced by the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act (XXVI of 1955). Before such amendment most of the documents referred to therein could only be furnished to the accused on application and on payment of the necessary costs and copies of the statements under Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code could to granted only on application when the witnesses- wtt put in the witness-box.

But the present provision has been Introduced as an essential safeguard for the accused because the procedure relating to enquiry of the case instituted under the police report has been materially altered. This provision casts a duty on the prosecution to furnish all the statements free of costs, at all events, before the commencement of the enquiry as provided in sections 207-A and 251-A, Criminal Procedure Code, The avowed object is that the accused should have a correct picture of the case that he has to meet so that he may prepare his defence accordingly.

This is necessary because under the amended provisions he has no longer a right and opportunity to cross-examine the witness before a charge Is framed against him. He cannot therefore be made aware of the true picture of the case against him in any other manner. The provision being of incalculable importance for the accused it cannot be ignored without detriment to the cause of the accused. So then, if the prosecution does not comply with the procedure laid down, it follows that the accused, having had no opportunity to know the case against him, will simply broken by surprise.

In the present case, it is evident that though the prosecution had come to know of these documents during investigation and was in possession of the same, it failed to furnish copies thereof till as many as eight witnesses were examined. It may be r