JUDGMENT 1. - By this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.7.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Gaddi, District Bhilwara, in Criminal Case No. 410/2000, whereby he dismissed the application filed by the accused-petitioner to confront and cross-examine prosecution witness No. 4 Smt. Rajeshwari with her previous statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned. 3. During the course of examination, PW4 Smt. Rajeshwari admitted that she made a statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused-petitioner wanted to confront the witness with her previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which was disallowed by the trial court. Section 145 of the Evidence Act provides the cross-examination as to previous statement in writing. A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statement made by him in writing or reduced into writing and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. 4. In Tahsildar Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 1012 , a Constitution Rench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "Section 145 of the Evidence Act indicates the manner in which contradiction is brought out. The cross-examining counsel shall put the part or parts of the statement which affirms the contrary to what is stated in evidence. This indicates that there is something in writing which can be set against another statement made in evidence. If the statements in the evidence before the Court are so inconsistent or irreconcilable with each other that both of them cannot co-exist, it may be said that one contradicts the other." 5. The Apex Court further held that the contradiction should be between what a witness asserted in the witness-box and what he stated before the police-officer, and not between what he said he had stated before the police officer and what he actually made before him. 6. The Apex Court further held that the contradiction should be between what a witness asserted in the witness-box and what he stated before the police-officer, and not between what he said he had stated before the police officer and what he actually made before him. 6. In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat AIR 1964 SC 1563 , a Three Judge Bench of this Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the previous statements of the witnesses before the police could be used to contradict their version in the court. 7. In Badri v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1976 SC 560 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the prosecution witness was not allowed to be cross-examined by the defence on a material point with reference to his earlier statement mad. before the police, his evidence stands untested by cross-examination and cannot be accepted as corroborating the evidence of other witnesses. 8. Admittedly, the statement made by PW4 Smt. Rajeshwari before the police under Section 161 Cr.PC. has been reduced to writing and, therefore, the accused is entitled to confront and contradict the witness with the previous statement. In the circumstances, therefore, the order of the trial court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 9. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 16.7.2004 passed by the trial court is set-aside. The trial court is directed to permit the petitioner to cross-examine PW4 Smt. Rajeshwari with regard to her previous statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.PC. and exhibit such statement.Petition allowed. *******