Fair investigation requires disclosure of witness statements in the case diary; recharacterising recorded material cannot defeat supply to the accused.

A written witness examination recorded on 21.02.2018, though unsigned by the investigating officer and reflected in the case diary, was treated as material under Section 161 CrPC and had to be disclosed to the accused under Sections 173 and 207. The Court held that the prosecution could not withhold such material by describing it as a mere oral note, because fair investigation and fair trial require disclosure of relevant collected evidence. It also rejected the objection of delay and laches, holding that inherent jurisdiction was not barred on those facts and that the revisional order was perverse. The refusal to supply and consider the statement was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statement of V.K. Jain recorded on 21.02.2018, though reflected in the case diary and not signed by the investigating officer, was to be treated as a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and furnished to the accused under Section 207; (ii) whether delay or laches barred the petition under Section 482 and whether the impugned revisional order could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the statement of V.K. Jain recorded on 21.02.2018, though reflected in the case diary and not signed by the investigating officer, was to be treated as a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and furnished to the accused under Section 207.

Analysis: The disputed document was shown to be a written record of examination of the witness on 21.02.2018 and was referred to in the case diary and other prosecution materials. The Court held that the prosecution's stand that no statement existed under Section 161 on that date could not be accepted in view of the record. It further held that the scheme of Sections 173(5), 173(6) and 207 requires forwarding and supply of the material statements of witnesses proposed to be examined, and that the investigating agency cannot withhold such material by characterising it as merely an oral note in the case diary. The Court also held that fair investigation requires disclosure of relevant collected material and not a selective presentation of evidence.

Conclusion: The statement dated 21.02.2018 was to be treated as part of the material under Section 161 and was liable to be considered by the trial court at the stage of charge.

Issue (ii): Whether delay or laches barred the petition under Section 482 and whether the impugned revisional order could be sustained.

Analysis: The Court rejected the objection of delay, holding that limitation under the Limitation Act did not bar invocation of inherent powers in the facts of the case and that the explanations offered could not defeat the petition where a miscarriage of justice was shown. It also found the revisional court's view perverse because it treated a written statement reflected in the case diary as a mere oral examination outside Section 161, notwithstanding the surrounding record and the prosecution's own references. The Court accordingly held that interference was warranted to secure the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The objection of delay was rejected and the impugned revisional order was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the refusal to supply and consider the disputed witness material was overturned, and the trial court was directed to take the 21.02.2018 statement into account at the stage of charge.

Ratio Decidendi: Material collected during investigation and forming part of the witness statement record cannot be withheld from the accused by recharacterising it as a mere case-diary note, and the duty under Sections 173 and 207 is to disclose such material so as to ensure a fair investigation and fair trial.

---