P L D 1996 Lahore 277 (PLP)

This criminal revision has been filed by Nazar Muhammad against Mushtaq Ahmad and others against the order dated, 2‑10‑1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Arifwala.

2. Brief facts which resulted into the filing of the present revision petition are that Nazar Muhammad petitioner got registered case vide F.

1. R. No. 116 of 1993 under section 302/34, P.P.C. at P.S. Ahmad Yar on 18‑10‑190 against' n respondents Mushtaq Ahmad and others for the commission of murder of his g grandson Manzoor. After investigation challan was submitted in the Court and d the learned Additional Sessions Judge is proceeding with the trial. respondents through their counsel moved an application for providing them the copies of the statements of the P.Ws. recorded by D.S.P., Arifwala vide his Zinmi dated 19‑2‑1994 the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the petition and p passed the impugned order directing the prosecution to supply the requisite copies of the statements of the witnesses to the respondents accused persons. B Being aggrieved of this order the petitioners filed this revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that statements written in the body of the Zimnis do not fall within the purview of section 16 1, Cr. P.C. and the same could not be provided to the accused as a right. He further contended it that if the copies of the said statements are supplied to the it would amount to spoil the case of the prosecution. The statements were manipulated by the D. S. P. in connivance with the accused.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents and the State jointly submitted that 1 the different police officers have investigated the case on different times and have recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the persons who appeared on behalf of the defence. They contended that the statements of the P P.Ws‑ mentioned in the petition moved by them in' the lower Court are necessary f(for the preparation of the case. Non‑supply of those statements would prejudice .1. their defence. 5. 1 have heard the learned, counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully with their assistance.

6. The statements of the witnesses examined by the police officer during the course of investigation and recorded in the Zimnis in detail or in gist form are considered to be the statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Those statements may be in verbatim form or in the shape of question and answers. EEven statements in the boiled form recorded in the body of the diary may be ,rtreated as statement under section 161(3), Cr.P.C. the accused has the right to dernand the copies of those statements subject to the exceptions provided under section 162, Cr.P.C.

7. The contention of the learned counsel that the supply of impugned statements would spoil the case of the prosecution has no force. The prosecution ,witnesses would have ample opportunity to explain the circumstances in which those statements were recorded. Even they may refuse to have made such a statement before a particular Investigating Officer. Unless and until the witness are duly confronted with their previous statements, no benefit can be drawn by the accused. Prosecution may re‑examine such witness to explain the circumstance brought on record during the cross‑examination as provided under section 162(l), Cr.P.C. I am of the considered view that no prejudice will be caused to any of the parties in case of supply of the statements as prayed for. 113 The impugned order is neither improper nor. illegal or incorrect. The impugned 11 order is upheld and consequently the revision petition stands dismissed. N.‑H.Q./N‑360/L Revision petition dismissed.