31-8-89. This application bas been filed by the first informant against the impugned order by which his prayer for recording the statements of Anandi Mahto, Sagar Mahto, Ramashrya Singh, Aditya Singh and Hare Ram Singh under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Code’) has been rejected.

2. Admittedly, the police investigation was going on when the petition was filed on behalf of the Informant for recording the statements of aforesaid witnesses on his behalf under section 164 of the Code. Upon a bare perusal of Section 164 of the Code I do not find any difficulty in granting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. The statement of witnesses under section 164 of the Code can be recorded either during police investigation or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial.

3. Having heard the parties and perused the impugned order I am of the view that the learned Magistrate was not justified in refusing the prayer made on behalf or the petitioner. In the result this application is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed either to record himself or direct any other Magistrate to record the statements of witnesses, namely, Anandi Mahto, Sagar Mahto Ramashrya Singh, Aditya Singh and Hare Ram Singh under section 164 of the Code.