ORDER : Whether the witness, who step into witness-box, as defence witness and whose statement has been recorded under S. 161, Cr. P.C. by the Police can be confronted with his previous statement by the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, as well as, by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant or not, is a question, which has been raised before this Court. 2. In the instant petition preferred under S. 482, Cr. P.C., the order dated 12-5-2014 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 3, Sikar, wherein above question has been answered in negative holding that the defence witness cannot be confronted with the statement recorded under S. 161, Cr. P.C., has been challenged. 3. Succinctly stated the facts of the instant petition are that on 11-10-2009 the complainant/petitioner had presented a written complaint against the accused persons at Police Station, Nechhwa, District Sikar. It was alleged in the complaint that on 11-10-2009 at about 08:30/08:45 p.m. complainant/petitioner and his father had gone from their house to inspect their field and to guard the fields from the wandering animals, who may have grazed the same. On the way, complainant/petitioner and his father were encircled by accused-Sukha Ram, Suresh and two-three other persons, who were armed with lathies, axes and gandasi and they threatened to kill them. Accused raised an exhortation that since complainant had been quarrelling with them, on that day score shall be settled. The father of complainant was caused numerous injuries, as a result thereof, he had expired. Consequently, a criminal case, bearing F.I.R. No. 105/2009, for offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 341 and 302, I.P.C. was registered. 4. In the above case, the prosecution submitted charge-sheet against the accused-Sukharam, however, kept same pending, qua the accused-Banwari Lal and Ramdevaram. The charge-sheet submitted against accused-Sukharam was committed by the Court of Magistrate to the Court of Sessions, Sikar and was entrusted for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3, Sikar. The trial Court formulated charge under S. 302, I.P.C. against accused-Sukha Ram. Accused-Sukharam pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. During the course of trial, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State had given up one witness, namely Parmanand, who was cited by the Investigating Agency. After recording the statement of the accused under S. 313, Cr. The trial Court formulated charge under S. 302, I.P.C. against accused-Sukha Ram. Accused-Sukharam pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. During the course of trial, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State had given up one witness, namely Parmanand, who was cited by the Investigating Agency. After recording the statement of the accused under S. 313, Cr. P.C., accused examined witness - Parmanand cited as a prosecution witness by the Investigating Agency and given up by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State as DW-2. 6. In the midst of recording of the statement of witness - Parmanand as DW-2, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State made an attempt to confront the witness with his previous statement to demonstrate that the witness is making contradictory statement to the statement recorded by the Police under S. 161, Cr. P.C. 7. At that stage, an application was moved by learned counsel appearing for accused stating therein that the witness appearing in defence cannot be confronted with his previous statement recorded under S. 161, Cr. P.C. Reply was submitted to the application filed by the defence by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the law laid down by the Hon- ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shakila Khader etc. v. Nausher Gama and another, reported in 1975 Cri LJ 1105 (SC) is not applicable, as witness has been cited by accused-Ramchandra, who was sent for trial and was summoned under S. 319, Cr. P.C. and, therefore, there is no impediment to confront the witness in consonance with the law, as per law laid down under S. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. The rider noted in S. 162, Cr. P.C. will not stand in the way of the prosecution. 9. The relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :- ' As regards the evidence of D.W. 1 it was wrong to have allowed him to be cross-examined by the prosecution with reference to the statement which he had given to the police. Under S. 162, Cr. P.C. only witnesses on behalf of the prosecution could be contradicted by reference to their statements made to the police, and not Court witnesses or defence witnesses.' 10. Under S. 162, Cr. P.C. only witnesses on behalf of the prosecution could be contradicted by reference to their statements made to the police, and not Court witnesses or defence witnesses.' 10. The trial Court on 12-6-2014 vide a detailed order accepted the application moved by the learned counsel appearing for the accused and rejected the contentions raised by the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 11. Aggrieved against the impugned order, complainant had approached this Court for quashing the impugned order, as well as, affording opportunity to the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, as well as, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant to bring out contradictions made by DW-2 witness - Paramanand in the forefront by confronting him with his previous statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under S. 161, Cr. P.C. 12. Before the trial Court, the prosecution had placed reliance upon the case of Laxman Kalu Nikalje v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1968 SC 1390 , wherein in para 7, it was held that it is unfortunate that the Indian Law does not admit of cross-examination of defence witness in respect of his previous statement made before the police. 13. Contrary to above submission, the learned counsel appearing for the accused relying upon the case of Mrs. Shakila Khader (1975 Cri LJ 1105 (SC)) (supra) pleaded that only witnesses on behalf of the prosecution can be contradicted by reference to their statements made to the police, neither the Court witnesses or the defence witnesses, during course of cross-examination can be subjected to confrontation. 14. The controversy raised is not new to the Courts. Passing reference or observations made in the case of Laxman Kalu ( AIR 1968 SC 1390 ) (supra) in no way have laid the dictum of law. 15. The single Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of K. Rathore v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1997 Cri LJ 1791 (sic) considering the observations made in the case of Laxman Kalu ( AIR 1968 SC 1390 ) (supra) has upheld the contention of the defence counsel that the observations of the Hon- ble Supreme Court made in Laxman Kalu Nikalje (supra) in no way negative the mandate of law laid down in S. 162, Cr. P.C. 16. The relevant portion of S. 162, Cr. P.C. 16. The relevant portion of S. 162, Cr. P.C. reads as under :- ' Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by S. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination.' 17. The wording of proviso to S. 162, Cr. P.C. is explicit clear that the witness, who was called for the prosecution and whose statement has been reduced into writing can only be contradicted by the accused. No such benefit accrue to the prosecution, if the witnesses is called by the defence, as witness can only be contradicted by the accused and not by the prosecution or the complainant. 18. It will be apposite to notice the following observations made by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Shankar Lal and others v. State, reported in 1954 Cri LJ 1705 : The relevant portion of the said judgments reads as under :- ' (8) So important is this right that it has been recognised by the Legislature also and has been preserved by the express provisions of Section 162, Cr. P.C. While it was though fit to render statements made by witnesses during investigation and recorded under Section 162, Cr. P.C., inadmissible ' for any purpose' it was considered expedient to make an exception in favour of the accused and to permit him to make use of such statements for the purpose of contradicting the prosecution witnesses. It is significant that no right has been conferred on the prosecution to make a similar use of these statements if the witness appears for the defence, but the accused- s right has not been taken away from him. In the circumstances the importance of such a right for the accused cannot be too strongly emphasised. (Emphasis supplied). 19. In view of law laid down in various judgments and plain language of proviso to Section 162, Cr. In the circumstances the importance of such a right for the accused cannot be too strongly emphasised. (Emphasis supplied). 19. In view of law laid down in various judgments and plain language of proviso to Section 162, Cr. P.C., it is apparent that no right vests in the Public Prosecutor or the learned counsel appearing for the complainant to contradict defence or Court witness with his previous statement made by such witnesses to the Police. Therefore, the said question is answered in the negative by holding that observations made by the Hon- ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Kalu ( AIR 1968 SC 1390 ) (supra) are merely advisory or bring out in the light, deficiency in the law, but in no way effect the plain wording of proviso to Section 162 Cr. P.C. 20. Thus, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. 21. Upon dismissal of main petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive; the same is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.