Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.
(Note :- This order is in continuation to earlier orders reported in May Part at p. 928. The final judgment will be printed as and when received. - Ed.)
Writ Petns. Nos. 5670 and 6216 of 1980, D/- 10-3-1981.
(Para 3)
Code of Criminal Procedure section 172–Indian Police Act 1861, section 3–Evidence Act, section 35–Investigation carried out by superior police officer under direction of the State Government u/s 3 Police Act–Production & use of case–diaries–Bar applies to inquiry or trial and is a limited bar–The bar does not operate if the case diary is used by police for refreshing the memory or the Criminal Court uses it for the purpose of contradicting such police officers–There is no bar if it is sought to be produced and used in evidence in a civil proceeding or in a proceeding under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution.
(Para 5)
Constitution of India Article 21 & 32–Blinding action by the taken the official of the State resulting into breach of fundamental right–Blinding whether took place at the time of arrest or while in police custody being under enquiry–Application is maintainable–Pendency of Criminal Proceeding is no bar to trying a civil or writ proceeding.
(Paras 8 & 9)
Evidence Act section 35–Allegation regarding Blinding of under trial prisoners at the time of arrest or during police custody–Matter inquired into by high Police Officials–Report submitted by it is relevant under the section as report of a public official in discharge of duty. Relied on 1975 (3) S.C. 646.
(Para 9)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, concerning allegations of police misconduct, specifically the blindings of under-trial prisoners during police custody (!) .
The primary issue is whether certain investigative documents called for by the Court are liable to be produced by the State or if their production is barred under specific legal provisions, namely Sections 162 and 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code (!) (!) .
The documents in question include police reports, correspondence, and case-related files prepared during official investigations into allegations of police brutality and the blinding of prisoners (!) .
The State contends that these documents are protected from disclosure under Sections 162 and 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which limit the use and production of police statements and case diaries during inquiries, trials, or investigations (!) (!) (!) .
The Court clarifies that Sections 162 and 172 are limited to proceedings that are inquiries or trials concerning specific offenses and do not extend to civil proceedings or constitutional writ petitions under Article 32 (!) (!) .
The Court emphasizes that the reports, being official records made by public officials in the discharge of their duties, are relevant and admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, particularly Section 35, which covers official records concerning facts in issue (!) (!) .
The proceedings are not criminal inquiries or trials but a constitutional challenge under Article 32, aimed at enforcing fundamental rights. Therefore, the restrictions of Sections 162 and 172 do not apply to these documents in this context (!) .
The Court underscores the importance of full disclosure of relevant facts in the pursuit of justice, noting that exceptions to this principle are strictly interpreted and do not justify blanket protection of investigative records in civil or constitutional proceedings (!) (!) .
The Court directs the production of the relevant official reports and correspondence related to the investigation into the alleged police misconduct, emphasizing their relevance and admissibility as evidence (!) (!) .
The Court also orders that copies of these documents be made available for the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, ensuring that the process is not impeded and is conducted expeditiously (!) .
These points summarize the Court's reasoning regarding the production and relevance of investigative documents in a constitutional writ petition concerning police misconduct.
ORDER :- The question which arises before us for consideration is whether certain documents called for by the Court by its order dated 16th Feb., 1981 are liable to be produced by the State or their production is barred under some provision of law. The documents called for are set out in the Order dated 16th Feb., 1981 and they are as follows :
1. the CID report submitted by L. V. Singh, DIG, CID (Anti-Dacoity) on Dec. 9, 1980 :
2. the CID reports on all the 24 cases submitted by L. V. Singh and his associates between January 10 and Jan. 20, 1981;
3. the letters number 4R dated 3rd Jan., 1981 and number 20/R dated 7th Jan.. 1981 from L. V. Singh to the IG, Police.
4. the files containing all correspondence and nothings exchanged between L. V. Singh, DIG and M. K. Jha, Additional IG, regarding the CID inquiry into the findings, and
5. the file presently in the office of the IG, S. K. Chatterjee containing the reports submitted by Inspector and Sub-Inspector of CID to Gajendra NaRam, DIG, Bhagalpur on 18th July or thereabouts and his letter to K. D. Singh, SP, CID, Patna which has the hand-written observations of Mr. M. K. Jha.
The State has objected to the production of these documents on the ground that they are protected from disclosure under Ss. 162 and 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and the petitioners are not entitled to see them or to make any use of them in the present proceeding. This contention raises a question of some importance and it has been debated with great fervour on both sides but we do not think it presents any serious difficulty in its resolution, if we have regard to the terms of Ss. 162 and 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the State.
2. We will first consider the question in regard to the report submitted by Sh. L. V. Singh, Deputy Inspector-General CID (Anti-Dacoity) on 9th Dec., 1980 and the reports submitted by him and his associates Sh. R. R. Prasad, S. P. (Anti-Dacoity) and Smt. Manjuri Jaurahar, S. P. (Anti-Dacoity) between 10th and 20th Jan., 1981. These reports have been handed over to us for our perusal by Mr. K. G. Bhagat, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and it is clear from these reports, and that has also been stated before us on behalf of the State, that by an Order dated 28-29th November, 1980 made by the State Government under S. 3 of the Indian Police Act, 1861, Sh. L. V. Singh was directed by the State Government to investigate into 24 cases of blinding of under-trial prisoners and it was in discharge of this official duty entrusted to him that he with the assistance of his associates Sh. R. R. Prasad and Smt. Manjuri Jaurahar investigated these cases and made these reports. These reports set out the conclusions reached by him as a result of his investigation into these cases. The question is whether the production of these reports is bit by Ss. 162 and 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It may be pointed out that these are the only provisions of law under which the State resists production of these reports. The State has not claimed privilege in regard to these reports under Section 123 or Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. All that is necessary therefore is to examine the applicability of Ss. 162 and 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the present case.
3. Before we refer to the provisions of Sections 162 and 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it would be convenient to set out briefly a few relevant provisions of that Code. Section 2 is the definition section and Cl. (g) of that section defines Inquiry to mean "every inquiry, other than a trial conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or Court". Clause (h) of S. 2 gives the definition of investigation and it says that investigation includes "all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this. behalf". Section 4 provides:
"4. (1)
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
