JUDGMENT 1. - A short interesting question of law is involved in this case. The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Ministry of Commerce; Government of India, New Delhi, the non-petitioner No. 1, filed a complaint against the accused petitioner in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jaipur under Section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) it is not disputed that the investigation in the case was made by Special Police establishment, fraude suad-(ii), New Delhi, as envisaged under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. 1973. The accused petitioners submitted an application before the trial-court on 2.1.80 with a prayer that statement of the prosecution witnesses may not be recorded till the police statements are produced in the court and sufficient time is made available to the defence to obtain photostat copy at their own expense and cross-examination prepared with respect to these statements. It was further prayed that the authorities mentioned in para 5 of the application be directed to produce or cause them to be produced in the court, the police statements of the witnesses mentioned in Annexure:-A, appended to the application. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 10.12.1980, dismissed the above application. The learned Magistrate considered the various authorities cited before him and though relied upon decision of this Court reported in W.L.N. 1975 page 137, and took the view that the accused persons were entitled to get the copies of the documents, but dismissed the application on the ground that previously on two occasions such prayer had been rejected by his predecessor. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate, the accused petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in this court. 2. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that it was a case where the investigation was conducted by the police under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. and it was only in view of Section 6 of the Imports and Exports Act, 1947 that the complaint was filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Section 6 laid-down that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 5 except upon complaint in writing made by an Officer, authorised in this behalf by the Central Government, by general or special order. It is contended that in view of the provision of Section 6, the complaint was required to be filed by an officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government, otherwise there was no difference in this complaint and police report. 3. Mr. Mathur further submitted that it is very necessary to furnish the copies of the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in order to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. Reliance is placed on Bakhtowar Singh v. The State : 1951 RLW 186 - Nany v. The State : 1953 RLW 465 , Ajit Singh v. Ram Singh, 1975 WLN (UC) 271 and State of Rajasthan v. Moti Singh and others, 1975 WLN 137. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court itself in another case gave a direction to the learned Public Prosecutor to file the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. vide Annexure K filed along with the petition. 4. Mr. Soral, learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioner, on the offer, hand, submitted that the provisions of Section 173 Cr. P.C. can be made applicable only in a case where the cognizance is taken on a police report. It is contended that in the present ease cognizance has not been taken on a police report but on a complaint filed by the Deputy Chief Controller. Imports and Exports and as such no direction can be given for filing the documents as desired by the petitioners. Strong reliance is placed on the Assistant Collector of Customs Bombay and another v. L.R. Melwani and another AIR 1970 SC 962 . It is further submitted that the cases reported in 1951 RLW 186 and 1953 RLW 465 were cases prior to the amendment made in the Cr. P.C. in 1955 and the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Customs Bombay's case (supra) was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge who decided the case reported in 1975 WLN 137. 5. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. The short question to be determined in the case is whether a direction can be given under Section 173 Cr. P.C. in a case where investigation is done by the police under Chapter XII of the Cr. PA but cognizance is taken on a complaint and not on police report. The short question to be determined in the case is whether a direction can be given under Section 173 Cr. P.C. in a case where investigation is done by the police under Chapter XII of the Cr. PA but cognizance is taken on a complaint and not on police report. Fart he question to be considered is that in case provisions of Section 173 Cr. P.C in terms do not apply, what other direction can be given in such circumstances. So far as the first question is concerned it is now concluded by a decision of their Lord-ships of the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Customs Bombay's case (supra) wherein it was held as under : "Where the criminal prosecution is instituted on private complaint the documents mentioned in Sub-clause (4) of Section 173 cannot be made available to the accused. Section 173 is attracted only in a case investigated by a police officer under Chapter XIV of the Criminal P.C., followed up by a final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Act 26 of 1955 made substantial changes in the procedure to be adopted in the matter of enquiry in cases instituted on police report. That procedure is set out in Section 251 A Criminal P.C., but in a case instituted on private complaint and governed by Sections 252 to 259, the right given to accused under Section 162 is sufficient to safeguard his interests. The copies of the documents cannot be made available to the accused by taking aid of Section 94 also. The section does not empower a Magistrate to direct the prosecution to give copies of any documents to an accused person". 6. In view of the above decision it is held that a direction cannot be given to the non-petitioners to furnish copies of the documents mentioned in Section 175 Cr. P.C. to the accused petitioners. 7. Now I consider the second question involved in the case. 6. In view of the above decision it is held that a direction cannot be given to the non-petitioners to furnish copies of the documents mentioned in Section 175 Cr. P.C. to the accused petitioners. 7. Now I consider the second question involved in the case. It is undisputed that the police had made an investigation of the present case under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. on a first information report lodged under section 154 Cr.P.C. Statements were recorded by the police during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 162 Cr.P.C. It is laid down that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing, if duly proved, may be used by the accused. Thus under section 162 Cr.P.C. the accused petitioners in the present case are entitled to use statements recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. Under Section 91 Cr.P.C. whenever any court considers that the production of any document is necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, such court may issue a summons or a written order to the person in whose possession or power such document is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order. Though there is no specific provision laid down in the Cr.P.C. like Section 173 Cr.P.C. for supply of such document in the case of a complaint but the importance of supplying such documents to the accused for the purpose of defending his case in a proper manner cannot be lost sight off. The investigation in the present case has been conducted by the police but the complaint was necessary to be filed on account of the provisions of Section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Thus, in my view the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C. are clearly applicable in the case like the present one, where the statements have been recorded under section 161 Cr. Thus, in my view the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C. are clearly applicable in the case like the present one, where the statements have been recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. The learned Magistrate himself has passed an order for the supply of such documents in an identical case and has also placed reliance on State of Rajasthan v. Moti Singhs case (supra), but he rejected the application filed by the accused persons merely on the ground that such prayer was rejected by his predecessor two times prior to the present order. I have perused the two earlier orders from which it transpires that the application was not considered on merits on earlier occasions and it was rejected as the accused petitioners did not press the application. The principle of res judicata in terms does not apply in criminal proceeding ' and in my view when the earlier applications were not decided on merits, the learned trial Court was not justified in dismissing the application on this ground alone. The petitioners in the present case have only made a prayer that the order of the lower court to the extent of dismissing the application of the petitioners for supply and summoning police statements of witnesses be set aside with a view to prevent the abuse or the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice to stop harassment and humiliation to the petitioners In view of these circumstances, the order of the learned trial court dated 10th December, 1980 is set aside and a direction is given to the non-petitioners to file the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. before the trial court, before recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 8. Mr. Mathur, contends that a direction be given to the non-petitioner to submit the originals of the statements of the witnesses who have been cited in the list of witnesses along with the complaint. Mr. Soral, on the other hand, submits that direction can be given only with regard to such prosecution witnesses who would be examined by the prosecution. As I have already held above that section 173 Cr. P.C. is not applicable in the cases and I have decided the right of the petitioners to get copies replying on Section 162 Cr. P.C. only. The proviso to sub-section (1) to Section 162 Cr. As I have already held above that section 173 Cr. P.C. is not applicable in the cases and I have decided the right of the petitioners to get copies replying on Section 162 Cr. P.C. only. The proviso to sub-section (1) to Section 162 Cr. P.C. lays down that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing, the same may be used by the accused and as such in my view a direction can be given only with regard to such witnesses which are called by the prosecution for evidence in support of their case. The complainant has cited 88 witnesses in the list of witness filed along with the complaint. It would be for the prosecution to decide how many witnesses out of these are to be examined by it. If the prosecution does not want to examine any witness out of the above list of witnesses cited by it, it would state so and submit the copies of the statements of such witnesses only which the prosecution wants to produce in the case. Thus it is made clear that the prosecution would file the statements of such witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. which it wants to produce in the Court. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they would inspect such statements or obtain its photostat or certified copies at their own expense. Thus, there is no question of supplying the copies of such statements to the accused petitioners. 9. The petition is accordingly disposed of with the directions mentioned above.Order Accordingly. *******