M. M. Pareed Pillay, J.

1. Revision petitioner is the second defendant in O. S.297 of 1987 of the Munsiff's Court, Kanjirappally. When the first defendant was recalled and examined his counsel sought to prove the deposition given by the second defendant in a criminal case. Its marking was objected to by the second defendant on the ground that it can be marked only for the purpose of contradiction under S.145 of the Evidence Act.

2. Contention of the revision petitioner is that the Court below grievously erred in marking the document ignoring the mandatory requirements under S.145 of the Evidence Act. S.145 enables the marking of a previous statement given by a witness when he is cross examined. As contemplated under S.145 the previous statement can be admitted in evidence after drawing the attention of the maker to it. If the previous statement is intended to contradict a witness due compliance of S.145 must be strictly observed,

3. The weight of authorities is that a witness or a party who appears as a witness should be given an opportunity to explain any previous statement which he had made and which is contrary to his present statement. It is essential that the Court should gi