IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2667 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/05/2008 IN CRMP.3048/2006 IN SC.232/2006 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED. ------------------------------------- B.A. NAVAS, S/O. ABDUL KAREEM, BANGLAVU PARAMBIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL SRI.AJEY THOMAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STANDING COUNSEL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 2667 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 01-09-2008 ORDER In this Revision filed by the first accused in Sessions Case No. 232 of 2006 pending before the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I/III, the revision petitioner challenges the order dated 31-5-2008 passed by the Special Judge refusing his application to direct the C.B.I. to furnish copies of the statements of charge witness Nos. 1 to 79 recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. by the local police, namely Circle Inspector of Police Kanjirappally and subsequently by the C.B.C.I.D., Kottayam. 2. The Court below accepted the objection raised by C.B.I. and held that the accused is entitled to copies of the C.D. statements of those witnesses only if the prosecution is relying on those statements. The said stand taken by the C.B.I. and upheld by the court below cannot be sustained. Whether the prosecution is relying on the C.D. statements of those witnesses or not the prosecution is bound to supply to the accused of the previous statements recorded by the police under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Of course, if the prosecution is not examining any of those witnesses, then they are not bound to give copies of the previous statements of those witnesses. I am -:2:- fortified in this connection by the decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Raghavan alias Maniyan - 1974 KLT 148 . May be the C.B. has got a case that the investigation conducted by the earlier agencies was not an honest investigation. That is a matter which the C.B.I. will have to substantiate before the court below. In case the prosecution is examining all the above witnesses it has to ensure that the true copies of the previous statements recorded by the earlier investigating agencies are also furnished to the accused well before the examination of those witnesses. The impugned order is set aside and the revision is allowed as above. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.