Ranawat, J.—This is a reference by the District Magistrate Udaipur. The facts leading to this reference are as follows. In a case State vs.Kesarsingh,Heeralal and Govindsingh Jume Khan was produced as a prosecution witness on the 8th April, 1953, in the court of the City Magistrate, Udaipur. The witness in his examination-in-chief stated that he did not remember anything and that his statement which had been recorded previously was made by him correctly. The public Prosecutor thereupon wanted to put the statement of the witness, which had been recorded under sec. 164 Cr.P.C., in the hands of the witness for refreshing his memory. Such a course was objected to by the other side, and the learned City Magistrate after hearing the arguments on both the sides on the point felt that such a use of a statement recorded under sec. 164 could not be permitted. The prosecution filed a revision application in the court of the District Magistrate, Udaipur, against the said order of the reference. The learned District Magistrate has observed that under sec. 159 of the Indian Evidence Act, the memory of the witness could be refreshed with reference to his previous statement and the order of the Ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document