Order The accused in C.C. No. 12350 of 1955 on the file of the IV Presidency Magistrate is the petitioner herein. The circumstances under which this Criminal Revision Petition is filed are these:- On 1st December, 1955 the City Police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner that is, the accused in the above case for an offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code. The accused appeared on 12th March, 1956. The case was adjourned to 17th March, 1956 for furnishing to the accused copies of documents referred to in section 173(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. No documents were furnished on the 17th and so the case was adjourned to 20th March, 1956 when copies of certain documents alone were made available to the accused. On the 20th after hearing the prosecution and the counsel for the accused a charge was framed for an offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code without examination of any of the witnesses cited in the charge-sheet. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and then the case stood adjourned to 3rd April, 1956 for examining witnesses on the prosecution side. In the charge-sheet only four witnesses were examined. They were (1) Parmar; (2) Chandra; (3) Rajagargh and (4) Venugopal. On 3rd April, 1956, P.W. 1 (that is, the first mentioned witness in the charge-sheet) the complainant in the case was present, but as he did not know any language other than Gujarathi, the case was adjourned to 4th April, 1956, for getting a Gujarathi translator. On 4th April, 1956 with the assistance of the Gujarathi interpreter of the High Court, P.W. 1 was examined and Exhibits P-1 to P-17 were marked. On the the same day Rajagargh, the third mentioned witness in the charge-sheet was given up by the prosecution and an additional list of witnesses was filed for whom the Magistrate directed issue of summons. The case then stood adjourned to 17th April, 1956. On 17th April, 1956, as no witness turned up, fresh summons were ordered to all the witnesses except to N.C. Chandra the second mentioned witness in the charge-sheet. He was directed to be examined on commission. The case was again adjourned to 27th April, 1956. This Court in Crl.R.C. No. 466 of 1956 quashed the order of the Magistrate directing the examination of Chandra on commission, for the reasons mentioned therein. He was directed to be examined on commission. The case was again adjourned to 27th April, 1956. This Court in Crl.R.C. No. 466 of 1956 quashed the order of the Magistrate directing the examination of Chandra on commission, for the reasons mentioned therein. The case underwent several adjournments and stood finally posted to 10th May, 1956 for examination of witnesses mentioned in the additional list filed on 4th April, 1956. The names of witnesses mentioned in the additional list and who were sought to be examined were Jadawla, Mathurdoss, Thakore and Narayan Nair. Among these additional witnesses to be examined the first mentioned witness, Jadawla was given up. The second mentioned person Mathurdoss was examined as P.W. 2 on 10th May, 1956 and Exhibits P-18 to P-23 were marked. The case was then adjourned to 23rd May, 1956 when the third and the fourth witnesses mentioned in the list, Thakore and Narayan Nair were examined as P.Ws. 3 and 4 and Exhibits P-24 to P-31 were marked. On the same day, that is, on 23rd May, 1956 the prosecution filed another list of witnesses and asked that summons should be issued to them. The witnesses sought to be summoned are Narayan Rao and Chittibabu. The accused raised an objection to the examination of these additional witnesses but his objection was overruled and it is against this order of the lower Court rejecting the objection of the accused to the examination of the additional witnesses whose names were furnished on 20th March, 1956, that the present revision case has been filed. It is alleged and conceded by the prosecution that these two witnesses, viz., Narayana Rao and Chitti Babu were not examined by the police during the investigation and that, therefore, no statements were recorded from them under section 161(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. So far as P.Ws. 1 to 4 are concerned, it is alleged that copies of statements of P.Ws. 1 to 3 recorded under section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code were granted to the accused but that no copy of the statement of P.W. 4 was furnished. P.W. 4 is one of the investigating officers in the case. He would not have been examined in the case and any statement of his can only be with regard to his conclusions on his investigation into the case. P.W. 4 is one of the investigating officers in the case. He would not have been examined in the case and any statement of his can only be with regard to his conclusions on his investigation into the case. As it can only be in the nature of an opinion copy of this document need not be furnished to the accused; but as regards P.Ws. 1 to 3 copies of their statements under section 162, Criminal Procedure Code have been given to the accused and therefore no question arises about them. It is only with regard to the last two named witnesses who were sought to be examined by the additional list filed on 20th March, 1956, objection is taken to their examination. It is alleged and it is not disputed that P.Ws. 1 to 4 do not connect the accused with the crime charged against him and it is only by the examination of the last mentioned witnesses that the accused is sought to be connected with the offence. The question is whether in these circumstances the two witnesses whose names have been furnished in the list filed on 20th March, 1956 could be allowed to be examined by the prosecution. This question would not have presented any difficulty before the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code by Act XXVI of 1955. The Criminal Procedure Code has been amended by the above mentioned Act with a view to facilitate expeditious disposal of cases. In an attempt to achieve this object the interest of the accused has not been overlooked. Very many important changes have been introduced in the matter of procedure to be followed in the inquiry before committal and in the trial of warrant cases. In the trial of warrant cases with which alone we are concerned at present, a new procedure has been prescribed with regard to cases in which the police file charge-sheets under section 173(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This is laid down in section 173(4) and section 251-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 252 lays down the procedure with regard to trial of warrant cases which are instituted other than on police reports. This is laid down in section 173(4) and section 251-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 252 lays down the procedure with regard to trial of warrant cases which are instituted other than on police reports. In cases where the police file charge-sheets under section 173(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code a duty is cast on the prosecution to furnish or cause to be furnished to the accused copies of documents mentioned therein free of cost before the commencement of the inquiry or the trial. Most of the documents referred to in section 173(4) including the statements and confessions recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code were, before the amendment of the Code, furnished to the accused only on application and on payment of the necessary cost by him. As regards 162 statements, they were granted to the accused only after the witnesses were put into the witness-box and that too only on application by the accused. By the present amendment this obligation on the part of the accused to apply for copies of these documents is dispensed with. The Legislature has enjoined on the prosecution to furnish copies of the statements and the other documents free of cost to the accused and that too before the commencement of the inquiry or trial. Further before the Criminal Procedure Code was amended by Act XXVI of 1955 the accused had a right to cross-examine the witnesses before a charge was framed against him to and also after the framing of the charge. This double right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses has now been taken away by the above amendment in respect of cases instituted on police reports though that right is still retained with regard to cases instituted other than on police reports. This case being a police charge-sheet case the discussion will be confined only to this class of cases. Prior to the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code in such cases the accused had a right to reserve cross-examination of witnesses till after the charge was framed but the charge itself was framed only after the examination of all or some of the witnesses for the prosecution. It may even be after the examination of one witness but under no circumstances can a charge be framed without the examination of any of the witnesses. It may even be after the examination of one witness but under no circumstances can a charge be framed without the examination of any of the witnesses. In short, the accused was made aware of the case against him by the evidence of important witnesses given in Court which enabled him to prepare his defence. The accused thus had a picture of the case against him and his right to further cross-examine witnesses was exercised to meet such a case and in support of his defence. Now under clause (3) of section 251-A of the Criminal Procedure Code without examining any of the witnesses and without recording any evidence, the Magistrate may frame a charge against the accused merely on a consideration of the documents referred to in section 173 of the Code and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard. In the place of evidence which formerly must be given in Court and which was subjected to cross-examination before the framing of the charge, the Legislature has enjoined on the prosecution by the provisions of section 173(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code to furnish or cause to be furnished to the accused copies of document referred to therein before the commencement of the trial or the inquiry as the case may be. Not only is this duty cast on the prosecution but there is a further obligation cast on the Court to satisfy itself that copies of documents referred to in section 173(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code have been granted and if not the Magistrate shall cause them to be furnished to the accused. Furnishing copies of these documents prior to the commencement of the trial or the inquiry is thus ensured. By this procedure even before the commencement of the trial the accused is given an opportunity of knowing the entire case against him which will enable him to defend his case properly. This provision of directing copies of documents referred to in section 173 to be furnished to the accused before the commencement of the trial is a compensation as it were for taking away the Tight which the accused enjoyed before the amendment of the Code. This provision of directing copies of documents referred to in section 173 to be furnished to the accused before the commencement of the trial is a compensation as it were for taking away the Tight which the accused enjoyed before the amendment of the Code. This advantage which the Legislature has in its wisdom thought fit to confer on the accused as compensation for the deprivation of the right which he enjoyed before, cannot in any manner, be whittled down. This advantage is really a right conferred on the accused by the statute and no one has any right either to deprive the accused of that right or undermine it or water it down in any manner under the guise of exercising some other power under the Code. The provisions of the amended Code referred to above, have therefore to be strictly construed and not in any manner which is likely to derogate from the rights conferred on the accused. Let us now examine and see whether what is sought to be done by the prosecution is justifiable. From the facts set out earlier it would be seen that when the charge-sheet was filed on 1st December, 1955 only four witnesses were cited including the investigating officer. That means that the prosecution had decided to establish its case against the accused by the evidence of these four witnesses only. Statements of three of these four witnesses recorded under section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code must therefore be granted to the accused before the commencement of the trial. So far as the first mentioned witness in the charge-sheet is concerned, a copy of his statement under section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code was furnished to the accused and he was examined as P.W. 1. Regarding the second mentioned witness in the charge-sheet, as he was the complainant in a similar case against the accused, copy of his statement in the other case was given to the accused. There is no suggestion that he was separately examined under section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the present case. Therefore, furnishing copies of statements under section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the other case will suffice. There is no suggestion that he was separately examined under section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the present case. Therefore, furnishing copies of statements under section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the other case will suffice. The examination of this witness on commission in the present case was dispensed with by the order of this Court already referred to and, therefore no question of non-supply of copies of the statement of this witness under section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code arises. As regards the third mentioned witness in the charge-sheet, Rajagargh, it is not clear whether a copy of his 162 statement was furnished or not to the accused before the commencement of the inquiry. This witness was given up by the prosecution on 4th April, 1956. As Rajagargh was mentioned as a witness in the charge-sheet, and as there was no knowing that he would not be examined, a copy of the statement under section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code should have been granted to the accused before the commencement of the enquiry and if it had not been granted it is a violation of the mandatory provision of the Code and a breach of the duty cast not only on the prosecution but also on the Court. On 4th April, 1956 apparently after the examination of P.W. 1 an application was filed for the examination of four more additional witnesses by the prosecution. They were not cited in the charge-sheet. This was the first assault on the right of the accused to know before the commencement of the enquiry not only the names of the witnesses but also to have copies of the 162 statements of these witnesses. Of the four witnesses mentioned in the additional list filed on 4th April, 1956 the first mentioned, namely, Jadawla was given up. The other three witnesses were examined on 10th May, 1956 and 23rd May, 1956 as P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4. Copies of their statements under section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code were granted to the accused before their examination. It is hot known as to why these witnesses were not cited in the charge-sheet if they were material witnesses. It is not open to the prosecution to spring such surprises on the accused by bringing in witnesses who were examined during the investigation without citing them as witnesses in the charge-sheet. It is hot known as to why these witnesses were not cited in the charge-sheet if they were material witnesses. It is not open to the prosecution to spring such surprises on the accused by bringing in witnesses who were examined during the investigation without citing them as witnesses in the charge-sheet. According to the provisions of section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses must be furnished to the accused before the commencement of the inquiry. The question is, did the prosecution propose to examine these four witnesses whose names were mentioned in the additional list filed on 4th April, 1956. If they did not propose to examine those persons as their witnesses, the prosecution should not have examined them afterwards. If they had proposed to examine them as their witnesses, not only should their names have been mentioned in the charge-sheet but that copies of their statemerits recorded under section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code should have been furnished to the accused before the commencement of the inquiry. Bringing in of such evidence without making any reference to it whatsoever at the time of the filing of the charge-sheet is against the spirit of the amendment and this ought not to be allowed lightly without a suitable and proper explanation from the prosecution for adopting this unusual procedure. By this, the right that has been conferred on the accused is sought to be undermined and it ought to be discouraged. On the top of these two more witnesses who were not even examined during the investigation are sought to be examined on the side of the prosecution. As they were not examined by the police they would not have made their statements under section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complaint, therefore, that copies of the statements of these witnesses recorded under section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not furnished to the accused is without force but by far the greater objection is with regard to the right 6f the prosecution to examine such witnesses. The prosecution attempts to spring an utter surprise on the accused by the examination of these witnesses. The prosecution attempts to spring an utter surprise on the accused by the examination of these witnesses. By this method the benefit that has been conferred on the accused as compensation for depriving him of certain other benefits which he enjoyed before the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code is sought to be taken away with the result that the accused is neither here nor there. It is true that the prosecution and the accused must receive equal protection under the laws with the one exception that where there is a doubt in the case put forward by the prosecution, the benefit of that doubt must be given to the accused. In all other respects neither should have an advantage over the other. The right of the prosecution to examine as many witnesses as it likes or such of the witnesses as it chooses cannot be disputed. What the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code provides is that the only side that is the accused must know before the commencement of the inquiry what witnesses the prosecution proposes to examine and what documents it proposes to file, so that the accused may know the full case against him as disclosed by the investigation. This right of the accused to know the case against him before the commencement of the inquiry cannot be defeated or undermined nor can it be watered down in any manner. The prosecution must decide before the commencement of the inquiry what witnesses it proposes to examine in support of its case, and mention their names in the charge-sheet that is filed, under section 173 and furnish or cause to be furnished to the accused copies of statements of those witnesses recorded under section 162 during the time of the investigation of the case. If this is not done, the prosecution has no right to call any witness they like subsequently and spring a surprise on the accused. This is the restriction placed on the right of the prosecution to call any witness not cited in the charge-sheet or not even examined during the investigation. But the right of the Court to examine such witnesses as it thinks necessary under section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not taken away by the new amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code and this provision is kept intact. But the right of the Court to examine such witnesses as it thinks necessary under section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not taken away by the new amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code and this provision is kept intact. The Court, therefore, can still examine such witnesses as it thinks necessary in the circumstances mentioned in that section. The power of the Court to examine Court witnesses is limited by the circumstances mentioned therein. It is a discretionary power and this discretion has to be exercised judicially. The scope of exercising this judicial discretion is governed by certain well-established principles. Vide the decision of this Court in K. V. R. S. Mani v. State1, and the various other cases referred to therein. All these decisions show that there is power in the Court to examine such witnesses as it thinks necessary for reasons to be recorded by it. In the present case for the reasons given above, the two witnesses, Narayana Rao and Chitti Babu, sought to be examined by the prosecution cannot be allowed to be examined on the side of the prosecution. As to whether they can be examined as Court witnesses or not, it is left to the discretion of the Court below. There is no doubt that the lower Court will exercise the discretion vested in it by the provisions of section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code judicially and in accordance with the well-recognised principles laid down in the case referred to above wherein other cases bearing on the same point have been referred to. In the result the order of the lower Court permitting the examination of the two witnesses, Narayana Rao and Chitti Babu, by the prosecution is set aside and the case is directed to be disposed of according to law and in the light of the observation made above. K.S. ----- Order set aside.