Statements made during the course of an investigation can be used in a subsequent trial, even if the subsequent trial is not related to the investigation in which the statement was made.

, J.

1. This application is by an accused person in a criminal case before a Munsif Magistrate, Monghyr, where the question arose as to whether the attention of a witness could be drawn in cross-examination to the previous statement made by him in another case.

2. The facts are these, At 9.15 A. M., on 27-4-1965, the petitioner, who is a Low Tension Fuseman of Bihar State Electricity Board at Lakhisarai, filed a case of assault, at Police Station Lakhisarai, against the opposite party, who was arrested and later on released on bail on the same day by the police. The said case was registered as G.R. Case No. 668 of 1965. The opposite party was a Member of the Lakhisarai Notified Area Committee thereinafter referred to as the Area Committee). The Police examined one Jamadar of the Area Committee named Ramgovind Prasad. After investigation, the Police submitted charge sheet, and the trial is now pending in the Court of the Munsif Magistrate at Monghyr.

3. It appears that in respect of the above incident, the opposite party also filed a complaint for various offences, such as Sections 323, 352, 504, 379 and 109 of the Penal Code, before the Sub-divisional Officer, Monghyr, on 29-4-1965. Cognizance was taken and the trial is also proceeding before the said Munsif Magistrate at Monghyr, namely, Shri Raghuraj Singh, and it is registered as Case No. 239C of 1965.

4. When the trial of the complaint case filed by the opposite party, Surajdeo Prasad, was taken up by the Munsif Magistrate, a number of witnesses were examined and cross-examined; and when Ramgovind Prasad was examined, and was being cross-examined after charge, the cross-examining lawyer on behalf of the petitioner, wanted to draw the attention of the witness (P. W. 5) to certain statements made by him before the Police in the earlier case, namely, No. 668 of 1965, to contradict his statement given in court in the present trial, but the same was disallowed by the Court. The learned Munsif Magistrate in his order dated 23-1-1968, has observed that under Sec.162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the statement of a witness made before the Police could be brought into evidence in the same case, and as, no statement of this witness had been taken in this case, nor did the Police make investigation in this case, the defence lawyer was directed not to draw the attention of the witness in this case to the statement made by him before the Police in the counter-case. The present application is directed against the said order.

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, and the sole question that arises for consideration is whether the statement of Ramgovind Prasad, who has been examined as prosecution witness No. 5 in this case, which he had made in the course of the investigation in the earlier counter-case, could be used, and whether he could be confronted with the statements then made. Mr. Dinesh Charan, appearing in support of the petition, has urged that the learned Munsif Magistrate was in error, and has drawn our attention to note 12 to Sec.162 in Chita-leys Code of Criminal Procedure, 6th Edition, volume I, which may be reproduced here:-

-

"At any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made."

A is alleged to have murdered X, In the course of the investigation by the Police into the case of murder, B makes a statement to the Police Officer. Can Bs statement be used in a subsequent inquiry or trial unconnected with the murder case? Before the amendment of 1923 there was a conflict of opinion on the point: some decisions holding that it could not be used and others holding that it could be used. The section as amended in 1923 made it clear that statements made during the course of investigation could be used in a subsequent case which was not under investigation when the witness made the statement. Although this section was again amended in 1955 the legal position in this regard remains unchanged because