https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313559 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. en-us Wed, 21 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:31:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313559 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313559