Bapna, J.—This is a revision by five accused, Bakhtawarsingh, Gard-singh, Tulchha, Nanura and Badri, who were convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Sujangarh for an offence under section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 250/- each. The appeal by the accused was disallowed by the Sessions Judge at Churu. 2. The case for the prosecution is that the complainant Surja was in possession of a field in the boundary of village Gopalpura and when he began to plough it on the 17th of July, 1947, the five accused, who are stated to be employees of the Thakur of Gopalpura, committed trespass and assaulted Surja and his son Deepa with lathies and began to cultivate the field themselves. The occurrence took place at about 2 P. M. and a report was made at Police Station, Sujangarh at 6 P.M. by Surja. The police after investigation made a report to the court of the First Class Magistrate, Sujangarh that the field was in possession of the Thakur of Gopalpura and it was Surja who wanted to dispossess the Thakur and committ trespass and caused injuries to Bakhtawar Singh who acted in self-defence in causing injuries to Surja. According to the police report, no offence had been made out. The complainant Surja had however, in the, meanwhile, filed a complaint in the court of Magistrate at Sujangarh on 1st of August 1947, and the trial resulted in conviction and sentence of the accused as aforesaid. 3. It was argued that the field was in the occupation of Heeralal and Jankilal under permission of the Thakur and the said Heeralal and Jankilal had taken Surja as their co-tenant but that in a suit for possession filed by the Thakur of Gopalpura against Heeralal and Jankilal,a compromise had been arrived at on 30th of March, 1946, by which the said Heeralal Jankilal handed over possession of the field to the Thakur of Gopalpura and that Surja complainant, who was in actual occupation prior to that date had in token of his having delivered possession, affixed his thumb-impression on the deed and that from that date onwards, it was the Thakur of Gopalpura who was in actual possession of the field. The two courts did not accept this contention and have laid stress on the fact that according to the evidence, the field was in actual possession of Surja. The two courts did not accept this contention and have laid stress on the fact that according to the evidence, the field was in actual possession of Surja. The learned counsel for the accused has made a grievance of the fact that the accused were not allowed to cross-examine Surja on the basis of his statement in the police. It appears from a perusal of the record that on the 10th of January, 1948, an application was presented on behalf of the accused that copies of the statements of the following persons who were to come as prosecution witnesses on the 12th of January, 1948, and whose statements had been recorded by the police during the course of their investigation may be supplied to the accused for the purpose of cross- examination of the said witnesses. The names of the persons whose statements were required by the accused are Surja, Deepla, Tiloka, Doolia, Sohan and Dungar. The court passed an order directing the prosecuting inspector to supply copies of the statements to the accused. The prosecuting inspector, however, did not supply any copies but reported on 3rd of May, 1948 that as the complainant being dissatisfied with the investigation and report of the police had filed a complaint in the court, the police had nothing to do with the case and copies could not be supplied. It is apparent that the a;cused did not have the opportunity of cross-examining the prosecution-witnesses, Surja, Deepa and Doolia, who alone out of the aforesaid six, had come into the witness-box and this denial of opportunity amounts to an illegality which vitiates the trial. It is unfortunate that the prosecuting-inspector did not realize his responsibility in the matter and still more unfortunate that the magistrate did not take steps to enforce his own order. Since the case hangs on one important fact as to who was in possession of the field prior to the incident, it was very important that the accused should have the facility of cross-examining the complainant and his witnesses in as complete a manner as passible. The object of cross-examination with the assistance of the earlier statement made by the complainant or his witnesses is to protect the accused against untruthful witnesses. The object of cross-examination with the assistance of the earlier statement made by the complainant or his witnesses is to protect the accused against untruthful witnesses. It is clear from the language of section 162 of the code that if a person is examined by the police during the course of an investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code and if that person is called as a witness for the prosecution, the accused has a right to request the court to refer to such writing and for an order that the accused be furnished with a copy of the statement of such person in order that any part of such statement, if duly proved, may be used to contradict such witnesses in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is immaterial in such cases whether the case was challaned by the police or is enquired into by the Court on complaint. The important fact which makes the applicability of section 162 of the Code is that the statement was recorded by the police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code. The learned counsel has relied on 1927 Nag. 24(1) (Hari Mahadeo vs. Emperor.) which supports the view which is taken above. It has been hell by their Lordships of the Privy Council in 1947 P.C. 67(2) (Kottaya & others vs. Emperor.) that the right to be furnished with copies of statements made by witnesses to a police officer given to an accused person by section 162 Cr.P.C. is a very valuable right and often provides important materials 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. In the circumstances aforesaid, it cannot be said that the accused have had a fair trial. I, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the accused and direct that the case be retried by the trial court according to law. As the Court of the Magistrate at Sujangarh has since been abolished, this case is sent to the District Magistrate at Churu who will send this case to the court of a magistrate competent to try this case.