“7. We would like to put one more discrepancy on record, viz., that while recording evidence, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge had summoned the I Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Tenali (PW.10) to prove the statement of P.W.1 recorded by him under Section 164 Cr.P.C. This Court has already ruled if any Magistrate records the statement of a witness under Section 164 Cr.P.C, it is not necessary for the Sessions Judges to summon that Magistrate to prove the contents of the statement recorded by him. This Court has already ruled that when a Magistrate, discharging his official functions as such, records the statement of any witness under Section 164 Cr.P.C, such statement is a 'public document' and it does not require any formal proof. Moreover, it is seen that the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, while recording the evidence of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali (PW.10), has exhibited the statement of P.W.1 recorded by the Magistrate as Ext.P.10. As a matter of fact, such statement cannot be treated as a substantive piece of evidence. Such statement can be made use of by the prosecution for the purpose of corroboration, or by the defence for contradiction, under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, is directed to note the provisions contained in Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Even if a statement is recorded by a Magistrate, it is not a substantive piece of evidence, but it is only a previous statement.”
