T.M. Hassan Pillai, J.

Admitted, Public Prosecutor takes notice. Heard

2. Challenge is made in this revision against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam in M.P. 95 of 2002 in S.C. 241 of 2000 on the file of that court. Crl. M.P. has been filed seeking permission of the Court to use the statement of PW.1 alleged to be recorded by A.S.I. of Police one P.K. Balakrishnan on 27-2-1996 under Section 161 Cr. P.C. for contradicting PW. 1 under Section 162 Cr. P.C. in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972."

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that "the purported statement, the copy of which is produced by the defence along with the petition in question, is not produced along with the records contained under Section 173 Cr. P.C. and supplied to the defence." Learned Sessions Judge further held that it is not a statement relied on by the prosecution and declined to allow the prayer made in the Crl. M.P. on the ground that no evidence is forthcoming to prove that statement (statement purported to be that of the prosecutrix recorded by the Investigating Officer on 27-2-1996in the course of investigation), is truly recorded. To fortify his conclusion learned Sessions Judge held that his predecessor found that the purported statement is "ingenuine." Holding that the alleged statement is not genuine, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Crl. M.P..

4. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the revision petitioner (endeavor is made to persuade me to hold that prosecutrix's statement is recorded by the Investigating Officer on 27-2-1996 as asserted by the revision petitioner) it is to be pointed out that Section 162 Cr. P.C., is conceived to protect an accused creating an absolute bar against the previous statement made before the police officer being used for any purpose whatsoever.

5. In any case, where proceeding has been initiated on a police report, the Magistrate shall, without any delay, furnish to the accused free of cost copy of the police report; first information report recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and statement recorded under Sub Section (3) of Section 161 Cr. P.C. of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as witnesses (Section 207 Cr. P.C.). Accused has a statutory right to get copies of the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of Section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses and that right is a most valuable right. It is a right, the exercise of which alone could give an accused an effective opportunity to test the veracity of the evidence led by the prosecution (See State of U.P. v. Kapil Deo Shukla 1972 SCC (Cri)597). The well settled proposition of law is that statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of investigation and reduced to writing shall be used only by the accused to contradict such witness in the manner provided by S. 145 of the Evidence Act or with the permission of the court the prosecution could use it for re-examination only to explain the matter referred to in his cross-examination. Statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. enables the accused to rely thereon only to contradict the witnesses in the manner provided by S. 145 drawing attention of the witness to that part of the statement intended to be used for contradiction and that statement cannot be used for corroboration of a prosecution or defence witness or even a court witness, nor can it be used for contradicting a defence or a court witness. (See Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab 1991 SCC (Cri) 976).

6. The object of Sections 162, 173 and 207 is to enable the accused to obtain a clear picture of the case against him before the commencement of the trial. The Section 207 imposes an obligation upon the Magistrate before the commencement of the trial (Section 209 imposes on the magistrate such an obligation before commitment of the case to the Court of Session) to supply copies of the statem