JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. J Ray, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. SC Keyal, learned counsel representing the CBI. 2. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as an accused in CR Case No. 3146/2007 along with another accused u/s 120B/380/411 IPC read with Section 7 (1)(c) of the PC Act read with control order passed vide notification No. STA/96/80/PT/174 dated 30.01.1985. 3. So far as the case is concerned, on the basis of source information regarding carriage of stolen crude oil by oil tanker No. HR-38A-9371 and UP-86-9709 one SI of Kamargaon, Dist-Golaghat intercepted the said tanker containing alleged stolen crude oil with alleged forged challan purportedly issued by the IOC and interrogation of the driver reveals that they have been deployed by the one Dipen Pathak for procuring the stolen crude oil. After making some preliminary enquiry, ascertaining the factum of forged challan the said SI lodged a complaint leading to registration of Kamargon PS Case No. 32/2004 dated 16.04.2004. Subsequently, the CBI has taken up the charge of the investigation and submitted charge-sheet against two accused persons including the petitioner. 4. Pursuant to receiving the summons of the Court, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court and he was supplied with the copy of document but the petitioner found that some statement recorded by the investigating officer of Kamargaon police station and certain documents were not supplied to the present accused petitioner hence by way of petition dated 01.03.2012 he prayed for such documents and statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161 CrPC including the statement of vital witness Prabhu Dayal Singh. But on appraisal of the learned counsel for CBI that the statement of witnesses sought by the defence is not found in the case diary so, the learned trial Court rejected the petition. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that statement of said witness Prabhu Dayal Singh and other witnesses recorded in "Hindi" by Kamargaon PS has been filed in WP(Crl.) No. 25/2004, so he filed another petition on 01.03.2013 submitting that the learned counsel for the accused got the certified copy of affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Addl. Chief Secretary of the Govt. of Assam in said WP(Crl.) No. 25/2004 in connection with Kamargon PS Case No. 32/2004 where the statement of vital witness Prabhu Dayal Singh as recorded u/s 161 and 164 of CrPC was filed. Chief Secretary of the Govt. of Assam in said WP(Crl.) No. 25/2004 in connection with Kamargon PS Case No. 32/2004 where the statement of vital witness Prabhu Dayal Singh as recorded u/s 161 and 164 of CrPC was filed. The petitioner prayed for copies of aforesaid statement and documents of the said witness prior to framing of the charge and the learned trial Court directed the CBI to furnish the copy of statement of Prabhu Dayal Singh recorded in Kamargon PS Case No 32/2004 and also copy of his statement u/s 164 of CrPC. The copy of statement as directed by the Court although furnished to the petitioner, but the petitioner herein again filed another petition before the Court on 18.02.2014 that photocopy of statement of Prabhu Dayal Singh furnished to him u/s 161 and 164 CrPC is different with the statement annexed with his petition dated 01.03.2013. 5. Moreover, it is submitted that the statement of said Prabhu Dayal Singh that was produced by State/respondent in WP(Crl.) 25/04 was in Hindi and English translation, so the petitioner prayed to furnish the copy of statement recorded in Hindi of said Prabhu Dayal Singh for proper appreciation of the matter. The CBI has however submitted (as per the affidavit) that document only the English version of statement is available which they enclosed for submission to the petitioner by the Court. In view of the submission of the CBI and also after perusing the case diary, the learned trial Court by its order dated 14.06.2016 has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner by holding that the case diary contains no Hindi statement of said Prabhu Dayal Singh and therefore could not be furnished to the defence side due to unavailability of such document in case diary and fixed the case for hearing on charge. 6. Present revision petition has been preferred challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid order. 7. I have heard the submission of learned Mr. J Ray for or on behalf of petitioner as well as Mr. SC Keyal for the CBI/respondent No. 1. 8. 6. Present revision petition has been preferred challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid order. 7. I have heard the submission of learned Mr. J Ray for or on behalf of petitioner as well as Mr. SC Keyal for the CBI/respondent No. 1. 8. Basic grievances that has been raised by the petitioner for non furnishing of one copy of statement of relevant witness Prabhu Dayal Singh to him that was recorded by earlier I/O, during investigation although he has received the statement of said witness recorded by the present I/O. In view of the different stand of the CBI regarding the non-availability of the said statement, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the matter should be enquired by the CBI properly and to furnish him the copy of statement of said Prabhu Dayal Singh which was recorded during the course of investigation. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the learned trial Court has passed the order without proper appreciation of law that the accused is entitled to get all the relevant copies of statement u/s 207 of CrPC and also the learned trial Court has not applied its judicial mind while disposing the said petition that the CBI has taken different stand at different stage. It has been urged that as the statement of Prabhu Dayal Singh was recorded in Hindi by I/O of Kamargaon PS and the translated copy of same was also annexed before the High Court in WP(Crl.) No. 25/04 but now only the translated copy has been furnished to him by suppressing the earlier statement recorded in Hindi. It contends that the learned trial Court has failed to take note of the fact that as the statement translated in English was filed by the Govt. officials and therefore without there being any enquiry by the learned trial Court regarding the previous statement (in Hindi) of vital witness, is bad in law and accused petitioner has been prejudiced for the same as he will not be able to cross-examine the witnesses affectively. 9. Relying on the decision in (2012) 9 SCC 771 VK Shasikala Vs. officials and therefore without there being any enquiry by the learned trial Court regarding the previous statement (in Hindi) of vital witness, is bad in law and accused petitioner has been prejudiced for the same as he will not be able to cross-examine the witnesses affectively. 9. Relying on the decision in (2012) 9 SCC 771 VK Shasikala Vs. State it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused has right to fair investigation and entitled to all the documents relied by prosecution, u/s 207 CrPC and he has a right to ask for all the documents whether relied on or not by the prosecution but filed with record before the Court and denial of access to document in the custody of Court may cause prejudice to the accused, in properly defending the case. 10. Mr. Keyal, learned counsel for the CBI by producing the case diary and the relevant documents therein has also submitted the history of the case that although the case was initially registered by Kamargaon Police Station vide Kamargaon Case No. 32/04 but on the request of the Govt. of Assam, CBI took up the investigation and registered the case as RC1/E/2006-Kol and they have examined the witnesses afresh on their own and at the conclusion of the investigation, they submitted charge sheet on 27.06.2007. It has been further submitted that they have not relied upon the statement of said witness Prabhu Dayal Singh, as may be recorded earlier by the Assam Police and it will reveal that earlier said person was examined as an accused being the driver of the vehicle carrying suspected crude oil but in course of their enquiry it was recorded that the said Prabhu Dayal Singh, without knowing the fact that the said crude oil was stolen one, he carried the same under the instruction of two accused persons including the present petitioner and there being no evidence as against the said Prabhu Dayal Singh he has been examined as a witness (in English) and he has been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet. 11. It submits that CBI is not relying upon any such statement of witnesses that has been examined by the Assam Police in connection with Kamargaon PS case No. 32/2004. 11. It submits that CBI is not relying upon any such statement of witnesses that has been examined by the Assam Police in connection with Kamargaon PS case No. 32/2004. The copy of the charge-sheet as well as the statement of witnesses that was recorded including the witness Prabhu Dayal Singh all recorded in English has been produced before this Court which reveals that the statement of the said Prabhu Dayal Singh was recorded in 16.02.2007 by the I/O in connection with the present CBI case. However, the CBI raise no objection, if the petitioner wants to cross-examine the aforesaid witness on the basis of his earlier statement that has been referred by the petitioner as mentioned above and which was filed in the WP(Crl.) No. 25/2004, as the trial of the case has been hampered due to pendency of the present revision petition before this Court. 12. I have considered the rival submission of both the parties as well as the case diary and the impugned order passed by the Court. Primarily, the petitioner has sought for statement of a witness initially recorded by the I/O of Kamargaon PS in the year 2004 and the same statement was filed before the Court in WP(Crl.) No. 25/2004 as on 19.08.2004 and subsequently the case was handed over to CBI on 02.09.2005 and CBI registered the case separately on the basis of same FIR but witnesses were examined afresh by the CBI of their own by not relying upon the statement recorded by the earlier I/O. In such eventuality and the stand of the CBI that they have no such statement in their case diary even if recorded by the I/O and same is not submitted along with the charge-sheet, which also reveals from the matters on record, the question of any enquiry to be conducted by CBI will not come. 13. In VK Sashikala (supra) it has been laid down that the accused is entitled to document which is relied by the prosecution and also to inspect the document even if not relied by the prosecution but filed along with the charge-sheet. But in the present case same is not the scenario. According to CBI neither the said document is available in case diary, nor it was submitted along with the charge- sheet or it is in the custody of the Court. But in the present case same is not the scenario. According to CBI neither the said document is available in case diary, nor it was submitted along with the charge- sheet or it is in the custody of the Court. The law laid down in the aforesaid decision would apply only in a situation where the document sought by accused are in custody of the Court not otherwise. That being the position the decision relied on by the petitioner will not be helpful to the petitioner. 13. In this context decision of the Delhi High Court in Dinesh Puri Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) dated 23.09.2016 in Crl. Rev. Pt. No. 351/2016 have a bearing on the issue before this Court and the observation of Court is quoted below: Section 173(5) CrP.C Provides as under:- 173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation- (1) to (4) xx xx xx xx xx (5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report- (a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; (b) the statements- recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses." 6. Further Section 207 Cr.P.C provides as under- 207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents. Further Section 207 Cr.P.C provides as under- 207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents. In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:- (i) the police report; (ii) the first information report recorded under section 154; (iii) the statements recorded under sub- section (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub- section (6) of section 173; (iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164; (v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub- section (5) of section 173: Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused: Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court. Further decision of the Honble Supreme Court on the ambit of Section 173 and 207 CrPC as discussed in Manu Sarma Vs. Further decision of the Honble Supreme Court on the ambit of Section 173 and 207 CrPC as discussed in Manu Sarma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi (2010) 6 SCC 1 has also been discussed wherein it has been held as below: As per Section 207 Cr.P.C. upon filing a charge sheet and summoning the accused, the Court is mandatorily required to provide to the accused free of cost copy of the FIR, police report, statements recorded under sub-section (3) of Section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, confessions and statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and any other documents or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub- Section (5) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is thus evident that under Section 207 Cr.P.C. the accused is only entitled to documents which form the part of charge sheet and are relied upon by the investigating agency to prosecute the accused. The provisions of Section 173(5) contemplate and make it obligatory upon the investigating officer where the provisions of Section 170 apply to forward to the Magistrate along with his report, all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation in terms of Section 170(2) of the Code. During investigation the statement recorded under Section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as witnesses shall also be sent to the Magistrate. Some element of discretion is vested with the police officer under Section 173(6): where he is of the opinion that any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings or its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement requesting a Magistrate (sic to exclude) that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reason for making such a request. Sub-section (7) of the same section is indicative of another discretion given to the police officer under law that where he finds it convenient, he may furnish the copy of documents referred to in sub-section (5) of the section. The provisions of Section 207 have a material bearing on this subject and make an interesting reading. Sub-section (7) of the same section is indicative of another discretion given to the police officer under law that where he finds it convenient, he may furnish the copy of documents referred to in sub-section (5) of the section. The provisions of Section 207 have a material bearing on this subject and make an interesting reading. This provision not only require or mandate that the court without delay and free of cost should furnish to the accused copies of the police report, first information report, statements, confessional statements of the persons recorded under Section 161 whom the prosecution wishes to examine as witnesses, of course, excluding any part of a statement or document as contemplated under Section 173(6) of the Code, any other document or relevant extract thereof which has been submitted to the Magistrate by the police under sub- section (5) of Section 173. In contradistinction to the provisions of Section 173, where the legislature has used the expression "documents on which the prosecution relies" are not used under Section 207 of the Code. Therefore, the provisions of Section 207 of the Code will have to be given liberal and relevant meaning so as to achieve its object. Not only this, the documents submitted to the Magistrate along with the report under Section 173(5) would deem to include the documents which have to be sent to the Magistrate during the course of investigation as per the requirement of Section 170(2) of the Code. 220. The right of the accused with regard to disclosure of documents is a limited right but is codified and is the very foundation of a fair investigation and trial. On such matters, the accused cannot claim an indefeasible legal right to claim every document of the police file or even the portions which are permitted to be excluded from the documents annexed to the report under Section 173(2) as per orders of the court. But certain rights of the accused flow both from the codified law as well as from equitable concepts of the constitutional jurisdiction, as substantial variation to such procedure would frustrate the very basis of a fair trial. 14. The aforesaid decision in elaborate manner has indicated that the accused can claim only the document relied by the prosecution or filed with the charge-sheet even not relied. 14. The aforesaid decision in elaborate manner has indicated that the accused can claim only the document relied by the prosecution or filed with the charge-sheet even not relied. In the present case as discussed above the CBI neither relied upon such statement made during earlier investigation, nor filed the said statement along with the charge-sheet. On the basis of submission of CBI, the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order. Nothing emerges to interfere into the order. As the CBI has raised no objection if the petitioner wants to cross-examine the said witnesses on the basis of earlier statement, the petitioner can effectively cross-examine the said witness Prabhu Dayal Singh during the course of trial with his earlier statement, in due manner. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.