' This is a-criminal revision petition filed by Muhammad Rafique etc. Against an order, dated 11-12- 1995 passed by Ch. Muhammad Ali, Additional Sessions Judge, Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge refused to supply them the copies of the statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. By the Investigating Officer of Crimes Branch, Lahore. The petitioners are involved in a case F.I.R. No,11/1992, dated 19-1-1992 under sections 302/148/149 and 109, P.P.C. Police Station Safwar Shaheed, Tehsil Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh. The learned counsel contends that the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer of Crimes Branch, Lahore are necessary for the preparation of the defense case. He further contends that it is also in the interest of justice to supply the copies of above said statements to the petitioners.
2. It is well-settled now that it is the right of accused persons to ask for the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer in the shape of complete statement, a statement in the shape of question and answer or the statement A which is in the boiled form. There is no provision in the Cr.P.C. Which authorises an Investigating Officer to record statements of the prosecution witnesses during the investigation of a cognizable case except section 161, Cr.P.C.
'3. Section 265-C, Cr.P.C. Provides that in all cases instituted upon police report the accused shall be supplied copies of the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation free of cost. I have gone through the impugned order. The learned trial Judge has not denied the right of the petitioner to get the copies of the statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. But has merely refused the supply of the copies to the petitioners on the ground that copies had already been delivered to the petitioners. The learned counsel contended that the record from Crimes Branch, Lahore, was only summoned by the Court on the application of the petitioners. The trial in fact started on the basis of submission of incomplete challah to the Court. According to the learned counsel, there exists no evidence on record about the supply of the copies of statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded by the Crimes Branch, Lahore. It is clear from the above discussion that the dispute is only about the delivery and non-delivery of statements in question as contended by the parties. It is not specifically recorded anywhere in interim order sheet that the copies of the statements recorded by the Crimes Branch had been delivered to the petitioners.
Even if, it is presumed that the said copies were delivered, the supply of the same once again would not cause any prejudice to the State or the complainant.
3. I have issued notice to the State and Rana Naseem Sarwar, Assistant Advocate-General has appeared in the Court on short notice. As the case is three years old, so I decided not to prolong the matter, got assistance from the office of Additional Advocate-General, Multan by issuing notice for today. The learned Assistant Advocate-General after going through the petition and record available, concedes that it is the right of the accused to ask for the statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. He has no objection if said copies are delivered to the petitioners.
4. For what has been stated above, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal and improper which is accordingly st aside. The trial Judge is directed to supply the copies of the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded by the Crimes Branch, Lahore to the petitioners.
Hence, the revision petition is accepted and disposed of.
Revision .