JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - The question involved in this criminal revision is whether at the instance of the accused the statement of a witness can be recorded u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The opposite party is being prosecuted for an offence u/s 366. Indian Penal Code. The prosecution was started on the Fast Information Report lodged by Padmabati Debata, the mother of the victim girl. The report was lodged on 20-8-1978 at the Capital Police Station. The allegation in the report was that Dali @ Kamalini, the minor daughter of the informant, had been kidnapped by the opposite party for immoral purposes. On the same day the opposite party was arrested and the victim girl was rescued from a canteen run by the opposite party near the Rabindra Mandap. The victim girl was, however, not restored to her mother and was detained at the Police Station. On 24-8-1978 Padmabati filed a complaint petition against the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station alleging unlawful detention of her daughter at the Police Station and praying for her immediate production in Court. The victim girl was produced in Court on 28-8-1978. On that day the opposite party moved the S.D.J.M. for getting the statement of the girl recorded u/s 164. Code of Criminal Procedure on the allegation that during the period of her detention at the Police Station the girl was being tutored by the police to make false statements. The learned S.D.J.M. rejected the prayer on the ground that the accused has no locus standi to ask for recording of statement of a witness u/s 164. Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The opposite party preferred a criminal revision which came up for hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge of Bhubaneswar. The learned Judge set aside the order of the S.D.J.M. and directed him to get the statement of the girl recorded u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. It is against this order that the present criminal revision has been preferred by the State Government. 4. It is urged in this criminal revision that the statement of a witness cannot be recorded u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of the accused. 5. The relevant portion of Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure is extracted below: Section 164(1). 4. It is urged in this criminal revision that the statement of a witness cannot be recorded u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of the accused. 5. The relevant portion of Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure is extracted below: Section 164(1). Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial. xx xx xx 6. On the plain language of the section, all that the Magistrate need satisfy himself is that the case is under investigation and that such investigation has not become fructified in an inquiry or trial. The section does not contemplate at whose instance the statement of a witness is to be recorded. There is nothing to prevent the Magistrate to record the statement of a witness at the instance of either the accused or the witness himself if it is felt necessary for the ends of justice. Ordinarily the Investigating Police Officer moves the Magistrate for recording the statement of a witness u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. But under exceptional circumstances the accused may also move the Magistrate for recording the statement of a witness. 1 he Magistrate has a wide discretion in the matter. He may record the statement of a witness at the instance of the accused when he is satisfied that the circumstances are exceptional and refusal to record the statement would defeat the ends of justice. 7. The purpose of an investigation by the Police is to discover truth. If the investigation is carried on perfunctorily or mala fide the Magistrate may exercise his discussion in recording the statement of the witness at the instance of the accused or the witness himself. 8. The question was considered by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court In the case of Muhammad Sarfraz Khan v. The Crown 52 Cri.L.J. 1425. wherein it was observed that a statement u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure may be recorded not only at the instance of the police but also at the" -Instance of the accused or the aggrieved person or at the request of the witness himself. In re C.W. Cases AIR 1948 Mad. wherein it was observed that a statement u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure may be recorded not only at the instance of the police but also at the" -Instance of the accused or the aggrieved person or at the request of the witness himself. In re C.W. Cases AIR 1948 Mad. 489. the Court held as follows: ....It is not necessary that the Magistrate should be moved by the police in order that he might record a statement. There may be instances where the police may not desire to have recorded, the statement of a witness for some reason or other. In such a case, there is nothing preventing the witness to go to the Magistrate and request him to record the statement and if a Magistrate records his statement and transmits the same to the Court where the enquiry or the trial is to go on, there is nothing wrong in his action. But such a thing will be very exceptional, as there is always a discretion in the Magistrate to refuse to record the statement. Ordinarily, when a police officer requests the Magistrate to record the statement of a witness on oath u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, such a request will not be refused by the Magistrate. But when a private party seeks to invoke the powers of a Magistrate u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate has got a very wide discretion in acting or refusing to act.... 8. In the present case the informant has challenged the bona fides of the Investigating Officer. Her statement in the complaint petition filed before the Court was that the girl was serving in the canteen of the accused on remuneration basis and when the accused did not pay the remuneration, she reported the matter at the Police Station. She denied having stated in the F.I.R. that the girl was kidnapped by the accused. In view of the conflicting versions of the informant about the circumstances under which the girl remained at the canteen of the accused, it is necessary to know the version of the girl who is a pivotal witness in the case. Though the girl was rescued on 20-8-1978, she was not restored to her guardian. She was also not produced before the Magistrate though the Magistrate's Court and the Police Station are situated at the same place. Though the girl was rescued on 20-8-1978, she was not restored to her guardian. She was also not produced before the Magistrate though the Magistrate's Court and the Police Station are situated at the same place. It was only after the complaint petition was filed on 24-8-1978 that the girl was produced before the S.D.J.M. on 28-8-1978. The order-sheet of the Magistrate's record shows that the complainant refused to take the girl to her custody and as a result, the girl had to be sent to a Shelter Home. The contention of the accused was that the girl during her detention at the Police Station, was being tutored to make false statements. In consideration of all these facts and circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in allowing the prayer of the accused for recording of the statement of the girl u/s 164. Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. It appears, however, that taking advantage of the stay order issued by this Court, the police has in the meantime submitted the charge-sheet without getting the statement of the girl recorded by a Magistrate. According to the terms of Section 164. Code of Criminal Procedure the statement of a witness can be recorded by the Magistrate in course of investigation or at any time after wards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial. Since the trial has not yet commenced, the learned S.D.J.M. may get the statement of the girl recorded by a Magistrate provided she is willing to make a statement. 10. Subject to the above observation, the criminal revision stands dismissed. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed