Honble YAMIN, J. – This order will dispose of the revision petition withdrawn from the court of Addl. Sessions Judge by order dated 2.5.1996 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 261/96. The petition may be numbered in this Court. (2). I have heard learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the respondents. (3). Briefly stated on 14.9.1995 Sugan Singh filed a typed report to the effect that his son Tej Singh returned from Deedwana on 28.8.1995 after taking Supplementary examination and stepped down at Khatu railway station at 10.00 P.M. Poorna Ram, Prabhu Ram, Rajendra Singh, Norta Ram and Prakash kidnapped him in a jeep. It was seen by Mohan Singh and Rewant Singh. When Tej Singh did not reach back home a search was made by the relatives and it was fruitless. One day his bag was found at Chhoti Khatu railway station. A case was registered under sections 147, 364 and 365, IPC. On 25.12.1995 dead body of Tej Singh was recovered from a well at the instance of some accused persons. Then offence under section 302, IPC, was added. After investigation, challan was presented against Ram Niwas and Chuna Ram on 12.3.1996 under Sections 147, 364, 365, 302, 201 and 120-B, IPC. Chargesheet against other co-accused persons was filed on 26.3.96. (4). On 14.3.1996, an application was filed before the Magistrate that copies of original statements of witnesses Mugan Singh, Ugma Ram, Rewant Singh, Mohan Singh, Prahalad, Ram Narayan, Bhagu Ram, Dhanraj, Sohan Kanwar and Others were not supplied to the accused persons and instead copies of their supplementary statements were supplied. It was also mentioned therein that statements of these witnesses were also not submitted in the court and the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory was not filed. Therefore, it was requested that the chargesheet may be returned. On 25.3.1996, Magistrate ordered that original state- ments of these witnesses may be filed in the court and the copies be supplied to accused persons and if the report of Forensic Science Laboratory was received, a copy thereof may be given to the accused persons. State filed revision petition against this order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana. It was pending before the learned Addl. State filed revision petition against this order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana. It was pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur and it has been withdrawn because a petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused persons to quash the order cognizance taken on 25.3.1996 and 26.3.1996 as well as bail application has been filed on behalf of accused persons. (5). Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the alleged statements of witnesses, copies of which are asked for do not come within the definition of ``statements under section 173(5), Cr.P.C. and, therefore, there was no necessity to submit them before the learned Magistrate and to supply copies to accused persons. His contention is that prosecution does not regard them as statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. because they are not correctly recorded and a note to this effect was made in the chargesheet No. 11A. According to him, the Investigating Officers who recorded them favoured the accused persons and departmental action was being taken against them. His submission is that prosecution is not relying upon such statements as they have not been recorded faithfully. (6). On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused persons have contended that the prosecution had agreed to supply the statements to the court and their copies to accused persons before learned Sessions Judge on 12.4.1996. Therefore, their submission is that game of hide and seek should not be allowed. They have also contended that it is mandatory that statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witness should be submitted before the court and their copies should be sup- plied to accused persons. Therefore, their submission is that revision petition should be dismissed. (7). There are two parts of Section 173 (5) Cr.P.C. Clause (a) relates to all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; and Clause (b) rela- tes to statements recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of all the persons whom prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. So far as Clause (b) of Sub-sec. So far as Clause (b) of Sub-sec. (5) of Section 173, Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is very clear that all the statements recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. of all the persons whom the prosecution process to examine as its witnesses are to be given in the court and their copies are to be supplied to accused persons. In my view, the statements recorded under whatever circumstances, come within the ambit of statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. because there is no other provision to record them. (8). Learned Addl. Advocate General relied on Sub-sec. (6) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. which provides that if the police officer is of the opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interest of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and the reasons for making such request. The words used ``any part of any such statement relate to statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. and referred to in sub-clause (b) of sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 173, Cr.P.C. It can not be said that disclosure of such statements is not essential in the interest of justice and is inexpedient in public interest. If certain police officers of the State have been found guilty of dereliction of duty it is for the State to punish them. So far as statements of witnesses recorded by them are concerned, they are to be given to the court and their copies are to be supplied to accused persons. I, therefore, do not agree with the arguments of learned Addl. Advocate General. As a fair prosecutor the State has to supply all the material before the court which is mentioned in sub- section (5) of Sec. 173, Cr.P.C. The only exception is given in sub-sec. (6) which in the present case does not apply. The revision petition has no force and it is hereby dismissed. (9). Matter may be listed on 13.8.96 for hearing of petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. as well as the bail application.