Judgment The appellant in this case was the first accused in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1949 on the file of the Court of Session, Anantapur. He and another were tried for an offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code. The second accused was acquitted, but the appellant alone was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. This appeal has to be allowed on a question of law. The occurrence is said to have taken place at about 11p.m. on the 1st February, 1949. Information was given at about 1 am. on 2nd February, 1949. It was recorded by P.W.7, who was the station writer of the police station, where the information was given. He says in his evidence that he investigated into the case and recorded statements of witnesses. He examined P.W.1 and he also examined P.Ws.3 to 6 and recorded their statements. These statements constitute statements under section 162, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sessions Judge finds in paragraph 6 of his judgment that these statements were not made available to the accused for cross-examination; but he rests content with remarking that “the police in this case did not play the game well”. In my opinion the objection goes to the root of the case. It has been pointed out by the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor1as follows: “The right given to an accused person by this section (referring to section 162) is a very valuable one and often provides important material for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. However slender the material for cross-examination may seem to be, it is difficult to gauge its possible effect. Minor inconsistencies in his several statements may not embarrass a truthful witness, but may cause an untruthful witness to prevaricate, and may lead to the ultimate break-down of the whole of his evidence; and in the present case it has to be remembered that the accused’s contention was that the prosecution witnesses were false witnesses. Courts in India have always regarded any breach of the proviso to section 162 as matter of gravity. Courts in India have always regarded any breach of the proviso to section 162 as matter of gravity. Baliram v. King-Emperor2, where the record of statements made by witnesses had been destroyed and Emperor v. Bansidar and ohers3, where the Court had refused to supply to the accused copies of statements made by witnesses to the police, afford instances in which failure to comply with the provisions of section 162 have led to the convictions being quashed. Their Lordships would, however, observe that where, as in those two cases, the statements were never made available to the accused, an inference, which is almost irresistible, arises of prejudice to the accused.” In this case the statements were not made available to the accused, and as pointed out by the Privy Council, an irresistible inference arises that prejudice has been caused to the accused. Denial of these statements to the accused has resulted in the exclusion of evidence which could be used by him under section 145 of the Evidence Act. In the circumstances the accused cannot be said to have had a fair trial. I therefore set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit the appellant. The fine, if paid, will be refunded. I must say that this is not the only case in which I have come across such conduct on the part of the police in the District of Anantapur. The police in this district seem to adopt a peculiar technique of saying that they embody the statements in what is called a special report and refuse to give copies of such statements to the accused. This is contrary to the provisions of section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, and this often results in conviction being quashed. I would like to invite the attention of the Inspector-General of Police to the conduct of the police in this case and in this district, so that such irregularities may not occur again in future. V.S. ----- Appeal allowed.