The accused's right to obtain copies of statements made by witnesses during the investigation is a valuable right that ensures a fair trial and the opportunity to confront witnesses with their previous statements.

The revision is by the State, and is directed against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, made in Criminal M.P. 525 of 1973 in Sessions Case 30 of 1973. The respondents herein, who were the petitioners (accused) before the Sessions Court had in and by the said Crl. Miscellaneous Petition, prayed that they might be given a copy of the statement recorded on 14-2-1973 from C.W. 2 Viswambharan by the Circle Inspector of Police, Shertallai, during the course of investigation. The objection of the State to the grant of the copy was on the ground that the prosecution did not propose to rely on that statement recorded by Circle Inspector, Shertallai, and therefore the accused were not entitled to it. The learned Additional Sessions Judge however, allowed the petition and directed the Public Prosecutor to make available the copy of statement to the accused before the trial commenced. It is the correctness of this order that is being challenged in the revision.

2. Sri K. R. Kurup, the learned State Prosecutor, argues that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 173(4), Cr.P.C. the accused is entitled, as a matter of right, only to the copies of those documents or extracts thereof on which the prosecution seeks to rely. In this case, according to the learned State Prosecutor, subsequent to the questioning of C.W. 2 done by the Circle Inspector of Shertallai, the investigation was taken over by the Crime Branch, and the Detective Inspector, Crime Branch, C.I.D. had questioned the very same witness on 20-2-1973, and it is that investigation made by the Detective Inspector that had culminated in the final report on which alone the prosecution sought to rely in the trial court. The argument therefore, is that it is only copies of those statements on which the prosecution seeks to rely, need be furnished to the accused under the mandatory provisions of Section 173(4), Cr.P.C.

3. Sri M. N. Sukumaran Nair, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents, submits that the provisions contained in Section 173(4) make it abundantly clear that the accused are entitled to be furnished with copies of not only the documents or the relevant extracts thereof on which prosecution seeks to rely, but also the copies of all the statements and confessions. If, any, recorded under Section 164, and all statements recorded under sub-section (3) of Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is also pointed out that the accused, even before the amendment of the Code by Act XXVI of 1955, was entitled to get a copy of all the statements recorded during the course of the investigation, with the only difference that he had then to apply for and obtain them, whereas under the amended provisions it is the mandatory duty of the prosecution to furnish the copies of such documents and statements to the accused free of cost, and therefore, it is inconceivable that the prosecution could now afford to shirk that statutory obligation. Reliance is placed in this connection by the learned counsel on the decision of the Supreme Court in Purshottam v. State of Kutch, AIR 1954 SC 700 = (1954 Cri LJ 1751) where Jagannadhadas, J. who delivered the judgment for the Bench, has observed as follows :-

"There can be no doubt that the right which the accused has got of obtaining copies of the statements made by witnesses during investigation is a very valuable right and that the wholesale refusal to grant the same will be a serious irregularity which would vitiate the entire trial as held by the Privy Council in "Kotayya v. Emperor', AIR 1947 PC 67 at p. 69 = (48 LJ 533)."

4. The State Prosecutor brings to my notice the decision in Ramendra Singh v. Mohit Choudhary, (AIR 1969 Cal 535) where there is an observation as follows :-

"The Official Secrets Act provides for a special procedure of complaint and if it was upon a complaint by a person authorised under the Act, cognizance was taken under Section 190(1)(a) and not under Section 190(1)(b). The procedure for tria