S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) A case rare in its nature having come to notice in this revision, the same is disposed of with reasons at the stage of admission. ( 2 ) CHAMPABATI lodged information in Jajpur Road Police-station that Dharanidhar (accused) and others kidnapped her daughter Kumari Minati on 5-9-1989 at about 10 a. m. in a car and at the time of interception by her two sons Padmalochan and Trilochan, they were threatend of assault by accused persons. Registering it as First Information Report, police conducted investigation. In course of investigation, petitioners were examined and their statements were recorded under S. 161, Cr. P. C. From these statements, it is revealed that petitioners were witnesses to occurrence. Charge-sheet having been filed against five accused persons, petitioners filed an application before learned Judicial Magistrate to record their statements under S. 164, Cr. P. C. , since they did not implicate accused Jitendra to have participated in the crime and investigating offficer with mala fides and ulterior motive mentioned in their statements about involvement of Jitendra. ( 3 ) FROM the impugned order it is seen that at instance of investigating officer statements of four witnesses including that of the victim girl have already been recorded under S. 164, Cr. P. C. Learned Magistrate exercised his discretion not to accept the prayer which is grievance of petitioners. ( 4 ) MR. G. N. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision reported in (1979) 47 Cut LT 298 (State of Orissa v. Amitava Prasad Das) and submitted that learned Magistrate ought to have exercised his discretion to record statements of petitioners under S. 164, Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) LANGUAGE of S. 164, Cr. P. C. , makes it clear that a Judicial Magistrate is not bound by law to record statements under S. 164, Cr. P. C. , whether he would record such statement is a matter of discretion and duty and not of obligation. See AIR 1964 SC 358 : (1964 (1) Cri LJ 263 (2)) (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh), it was observed : -". . . . . . . . . Quite clearly the power conferred under Section 164 to record a statement or confession is not one which must be exercised. . . See AIR 1964 SC 358 : (1964 (1) Cri LJ 263 (2)) (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh), it was observed : -". . . . . . . . . Quite clearly the power conferred under Section 164 to record a statement or confession is not one which must be exercised. . . ( 6 ) IN (1979) 47 Cut LT 298 (supra), Sessions Judge directed Magistrate to record a statement under S. 164, Cr. P. C. This Court did not interfere with the same. It relied upon observation in a decision of Madras High Court reported in AIR 1948 Mad 489: (1949) (50) Cri LJ 28) (In re C. W. case) which reads as follows : -". . . . . . . . . . . THERE may be instances where the police may not desire to have recorded, the statement of 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 to his action. . . ( 7 ) SECTION 164, Cr. P. C. is in furtherance of a fair trial or enquiry. Where a Judicial Magistrate would be of the opinion that a statement under S. 164, Cr. P. C. would advance cause of fair enquiry or trial, it can exercise the discretion to record the statement of a witness. If discretion is not exercised in favour of recording, revisional Court may interfere if it finds that learned Magistrate has not been able to appreciate effect of the statement to be recorded in the, enquiry or trial. Where, however, refusal to record a statement would not in any manner effect the enquiry or trial, revisional Court should not entertain the application for revision which would have the effect of delaying the enquiry or trial. ( 8 ) IN this case, petitioners can explain their statements under S. 161, Cr. P. C. , if they are examined as witnesses. At the time of appreciation of evidence, Court can consider whether Investigating Officer has wrongly recorded something which was not stated by petitioners. Refusal to record statements under S. 164, Cr. ( 8 ) IN this case, petitioners can explain their statements under S. 161, Cr. P. C. , if they are examined as witnesses. At the time of appreciation of evidence, Court can consider whether Investigating Officer has wrongly recorded something which was not stated by petitioners. Refusal to record statements under S. 164, Cr. P. C. does not affect fair trial in any manner. Learned Magistrate is justified in refusing the application. ( 9 ) IN the results, there is no merit in this revision which is dismissed. Revision dismissed.