Order This revision petition is preferred aggrieved by the order passed by the Special First Class Magistrate, Davanagere, on 13th March, 1970 in C.C. No. 1269 of 1969 on the file of his Court. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are: that the petitioners who are sixteen in Number were prosecuted for the offences under sections 143 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 324 and 326, Indian Penal Code. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses was recorded in the trial Court. At that stage an application was made on behalf of the petitioners (accused) under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on 23rd February, 1970, in which it was prayed that some of the police officials should be summoned and examined as Court witnesses. The Court below, by its order in revision, rejected the application filed by the accused petitioners. Mr. Deshpande the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is borne by the evidence of P.W. 14 that the statements of the witnesses (P.Ws. 2 to 8) were recorded by the head constable Nazir Ahmed in the Davanagere Hospital. During the course of recording the evidence of P.W. 14, the petitioners came to know for the first time that the statements of the injured persons were, at the earlier stage of time, recorded by the head constable Nazir Ahmed. Having come to know the same, the petitioners made an application to the Magistrate to summon the head constable Nazir Ahmed. Mr. Deshpande argued that P.Ws. 2 to 8 were material witnesses in the case. Therefore, he urged that the Magistrate has committed an illegality in refusing the application which had been filed on behalf of the petitioners under section 540, Criminal Procedure Code. P.W. 14, in his cross-examination deposed. “Copies of those statements and original statements were kept in the case diary. The original statements were not sent to Court. Copies of those statements were sent to the higher officers.” Further down in his cross-examination he stated: “Original statements were sent to Court along with the F.I.R.…………………………………on the first day when I received the CD. I, enquired the P.S.I. what happened to the original statement. He told me that they might have been mislaid.” It is clear from the testimony of this witness that the originals are not traceable. I, enquired the P.S.I. what happened to the original statement. He told me that they might have been mislaid.” It is clear from the testimony of this witness that the originals are not traceable. That being so, the copies of the original statements would become admissible in evidence. It is not denied before me that Nazir Ahmed (head constable) had recorded the statements of the injured persons. Therefore, Nazir Ahmed was a material witness in the case though the other police officers cannot be termed to be so. The application was filed as mentioned above under section 540, Criminal Procedure Code. section 540, Criminal Procedure Code, applies at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code. The language of that section is couched in a very wide term. In the circumstances stated above, I think, that the Magistrate was wrong in disallowing the application filed on behalf of the petitioners as far as the head constable Nazir Ahmed was concerned. With regard to the remaining police officers mentioned therein, since it is shown by the evidence that they have not got anything to do with the originals to that extent, the Magistrate was right in rejecting the application filed on behalf of the petitioners. This revision petition is therefore allowed. The Magistrate will now summon the head constable Nazir Ahmed at a Court witness and afford both the parties to cross examine the said witness if they choose to do so. To that extent, the order of the Court below is set aside and this revision petition is disposed of accordingly. M.C.M. ----- Revision allowed in part.