Order This is a petition by the accused. The circumstances under which this petition is filed, are as follows: 2. One Karuppathal, wife of Palanivalayam alias Palani, preferred a complaint on 26.6.1984 to the Station House Officer, Karumathampatti Police Stationstating that her husband was not traceable from the night of 9.6.1984. The complaint was registered in Crime No.90 of 1984. Earlier, on 10.6.1984, the second petitioner (2nd accused) preferred a complaint stating that on the night of 9 or 10.6.1984 at Ponnaian Thottam, two unidentified persons attempted to commit theft of coconuts and when the 3rd petitioner and himself attempted catch hold of the thieves, the latter inflicted knife injuries to them. On receipt of intimation from the hospital, a case in Cr.No.78 of 1984 under Sec.379 read with Sec.511 and Sec.324, I.P.C., was registered. It was directed by the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore Rural that both the aforesaid cases the transferred for further investigation to the District Crime Branch, Coimbatore Rural District. On 6.8.1984, they were so transferred and reassigned numbers D.C.B. Cr.Nos.5/84 and 6/84 in respect of the complaints preferred by the 2nd petitioner herein and Karuppathal, respectively. 3. After completing the investigation, the Inspector of Police, D.C.B., filed his final report on 24.7.1985 and on committal, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, took the case on file as S.C. No. 137 of 1985 wherein the petitioners herein were arrayed as accused. At the commencement of the trial, one Kittan, an eye witness, examined as P.W.1, deposed that a preliminary investigation was done by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, D.C.B., prior to the one conducted by the Inspector of Police, D.C.B., Coimbatore Rural and he filed a report under Sec.173, Crl.P.C. 4. At that stage, the petitioners herein filed C.M.P. No.420 of 1985 under Sec.91, Cr.P.C. to send necessary process to the Superintendent of Police to cause the production of the statements recorded from various persons, including witnesses cited in the charge sheet. That petition was ordered and those documents were produced. Thereafter, the petitioners filed C.M.P. No.421 of 1985 praying for causing the production of the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to the Superintendent of Police and on that petition also having been ordered, that report was produced by the Superintendent of Police with a request to keep the said document as confidential. Thereafter, the petitioners filed C.M.P. No.421 of 1985 praying for causing the production of the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to the Superintendent of Police and on that petition also having been ordered, that report was produced by the Superintendent of Police with a request to keep the said document as confidential. By order dated 17.12.1985, the Sessions Judge held that report was not at all necessary and that the petitioners herein are not entitled to peruse the same. Accordingly, he disallowed the prayer for copies being granted to the accused in respect of that report. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners filed this application under Sec.482, Criminal Procedure Code. 5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that they are entitled to know all that what had happened at the time of the investigation, that whatever statements recorded after the filing of the complaint and the registration of the crime, should be made available to the accused persons for the purpose of cross-examination and that the denial of the same amounted to a gross failure of justice. 6. It is argued on behalf of the prosecution that the order passed by the Sessions Judge is a proper one and that the petitioners have filed this petition as well as the petitions before the Sessions Judge only to protract the proceedings. 7. Sec.207, Criminal Procedure Code enumerates the documents, copy of which should be made mandatorily furnished to the accused. Sec.173(5)(b) slates that the statements of witnesses include all the statements made to police officer after the case was registered. Therefore, the prosecution had to file not only the statements made before the Investigating Officer who filed the final report, but also before the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In this connection, the trial Court has ordered that all the statements made by all the witnesses proposed to be examined made by them before the Deputy Superintendent of Police be produced before Court by its order dated 13.12.1985 in C.M.P. No.420 of 1983. If any of such documents remained to be produced and if the accused have not received copies of any such document, they are entitled to get the same under Sec.207, Criminal Procedure Code. If any of such documents remained to be produced and if the accused have not received copies of any such document, they are entitled to get the same under Sec.207, Criminal Procedure Code. But the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that even the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in this matter to the Superintendent of Police should also be filed and its copies made available to the accused. Such a document does not form part of the documents listed out in Sec.207, Criminal Procedure Code. In this case, the prosecution does not propose to rely upon this document. In fact, what is essential for the accused and for the Court is to know what the prosecution witnesses have said from the beginning. But what opinion the Deputy Superintendent of Police arrived at on the basis of such documents, has no value whatever. I therefore see no reason as to how the accused are aggrieved by the non-production of the copy of that report and I therefore, see no merit in this petition and accordingly it shall stand dismissed. 8. In view of the delicate nature of the case, it is ordered that the Sessions Case in S.C. No. 137 of 1985 shall stand transferred to the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, who shall dispose of the same expeditiously. B.S. ----- Order accordingly.