JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State. 2. With the prior consent of both the parties, looking to the urgency of the matter, this petition is being disposed of immediately. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the petition itself, contended that PW 2 Subhash who was also injured in the alleged incident, was examined on 5.12.94 by a Judicial Magistrate since his death was also anticipated but, any how, he did not succumb to the injuries and survived and, therefore, his previous statement so recorded by the Magistrate being in existence, its copy was never supplied to the accused- petitioner along with other statements of prosecution witnesses. As a result, since the accused was not supplied copy of such statement and, therefore, at the time of examination of PW 2 Subhash, no use could be made of his previous statement dated 22.8.92 and so the accused- petitioner was deprived of opportunity of exercising his right of cross-examination. As a result, the petitioner moved the trial court under Section 311, Criminal Procedure Code with a request that PW 2 Subhash be recalled for his further cross-examination in regard to the statement so previously recorded by the Magistrate and, at the same time, for calling the Judicial Magistrate who had recorded his statement. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, even on perusal of the impugned order dated 30.1.97 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, it does appear that copy of the said statement of Subhash so recorded on 22.8.92 was never supplied to the accused- petitioner. However, this order does show that the original statement was available in the record of the court itself. This by itself cannot be a ground to have implied that the accused-petitioner, through his counsel, had had a knowledge that such document was existing and was already on record of the court to enable him to cross- examine PW 2 Subhash in respect of this statement as well. Such a statement could be used for the purpose of either seeking corroboration under Section 157, Evidence Act by the prosecution in respect of the maker of the statement or, by the defence for the purpose of Section 145, Evidence Act. Such a statement could be used for the purpose of either seeking corroboration under Section 157, Evidence Act by the prosecution in respect of the maker of the statement or, by the defence for the purpose of Section 145, Evidence Act. Since the accused was deprived of opportunity to cross-examine PW 2 Subhash in respect of his previous statement so recorded, it is just and proper besides in the interest of justice that he should be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine PW 2 Subhash in respect of the statement dated 22.8.92 recorded by a Judicial Magistrate. 5. Therefore, merely because there were latches or indifference on the part of defence to have made use of such document from the record itself, it is not sufficient to deprive the accused-petitioner of this opportunity. The learned Addl. (Sessions Judge committed serious error by way of rejecting this prayer of the accused-petitioner and hence the impugned order of rejection of this prayer cannot be said to be justified. However, as regards summoning of the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement dated 22.8.92, having regard to the provisions of Section 80 of the Evidence Act, whenever any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the evidence, given "by a witness before any officer authorised by law to take such evidence, the same is admissible in absence of formal evidence in respect thereof. There is a presumption that the document or statement so purporting to have been recorded by such officer/magistrate is true and it was correctly recorded as given by the person so making or giving the statement. Accordingly, the prayer for calling of and cross-examination of the Judicial Magistrate is unwarranted and the statement dated 22.8.92 purports to have been recorded by a Judicial Magistrate in discharge of his official duties, the same can be admissible in evidence with the aid of Section 80 of the Evidence Act. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for calling of and cross-examination of the Judicial Magistrate is unwarranted and the statement dated 22.8.92 purports to have been recorded by a Judicial Magistrate in discharge of his official duties, the same can be admissible in evidence with the aid of Section 80 of the Evidence Act. 6. On the basis of above discussion, this petition is partly accepted and the impugned order to the extent of rejection of prayer for recalling PW 2 Subhash is set aside and it is further ordered that PW 2 Subhash shall be recalled immediately and, at the same time, a copy of the statement dated 22.8.92 shall be made available to the defence counsel to enable hitn to cross-examine PW 2 Subhash on his appearance. In case there is any justification, the prosecution may be afforded an opportunity to re-examine the witness as well, with the prior permission of the court. This petition is disposed of as indicated above. *******