Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 covers not only communications made by one officer to another but also communications made by private individuals to an officer in confidence, and if the officer feels that by the disclosure of these communications the public interest would suffer, the court cannot compel their disclosure.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - PUBLIC OFFICER - PRIVILEGE TO DISCLOSE COMMUNICATION - SECTION 124 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SCOPE AND APPLICATION - COMMUNICATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL TO PUBLIC OFFICER - WHETHER PRIVILEGED - PUBLIC INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:

The Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Customs filed a complaint against the respondents for contravening the provisions of the Customs Act and Gold Control Act. During the trial, the accused filed an application under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code, requesting the court to summon certain documents, including a communication received by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Customs, which formed the basis for issuing a search warrant and subsequent seizure of contraband gold from the premises of the accused. The Magistrate directed the said information to be submitted to the court in a sealed cover and rejected the privilege claimed by the Central Excise Authority under Sections 124 and 125 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The order was upheld by the Sessions Judge on revision.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 covers not only communications made by one officer to another but also communications made by private individuals to an officer in confidence and that if the officer feels that by the disclosure of these communications the public interest would suffer, the court cannot compel their disclosure. However, the court also held that the decision of a bench of the court in State of A.P. v. Appanna, which took a different view, was binding on it and referred the matter for consideration by a bench.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies only to communications from one public officer to another or also to communications from private individuals to public officers? 2. Whether a public officer can claim privilege under Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to withhold the production of a document if the disclosure of its contents would injure public interests? 3. Whether the accused is entitled to summon a document under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code if its contents are not relevant or material to the enquiry before the lower court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies not only to communications from one public officer to another but also to communications made by private individuals to an officer in confidence. 2. A public officer can claim privilege under Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to withhold the production of a document if the disclosure of its contents would injure public interests. 3. The accused is not entitled to summon a document under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code if its contents are not relevant or material to the enquiry before the lower court.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the lower court and allowed the revision.

( 1 ) IN this criminal revision petition by the Assistant Collector, central Excise and Customs the question that arises for consideration is, whether a Public Officer could be compelled to discloses a communication made to him informing the commission of an offence against public revenue. The respondents have been accused of offences punishable under Section 135 (b), (i) of the Customs Act and Sec. 85 (ii) read with Sec. 8 (i) of the Gold Control Act. It is alleged in the complaint that on 9-6-70 at about 6 A. M. the accused were found in possession of contraband gold imported from foreign countries contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act and the provisions of the Gold Control Act After some witnesses were examined in support of the complaint M. P. No. 119 of 71 was filed by the Counsel for the accused under Section 94, Criminal Procedure Code, requesting the Court to summon certain documents from the custody of the central Excise Department so as to enable him to further cross- examine the prosecution witnesses, one of the documents being the information received by the Assistant Collector. Central Excise, which formed the basis for issuing a search warrant and which ultimately enabled the Central Excise Officials to seize the contraband gold from the premises of the accused. In regard to this document, privilege was claimed under Section 125 of the Indian evidence ACT, 1872. The Court directed the said information to be submitted to it in a sealed cover. The Collector, Central Excise and customs, submitted the document in a sealed cover and once again claimed privilege under Section 125 of the EVIDENCE ACT, 1872. The learned magistrate held that the privilege cannot be claimed in regard to disclosing the contents of the information, and that only the source of the information may be withheld. In that view he directfd that the contents of the information may be disclosed to the accused after excluding the sources of information and thus rejected the privilege claimed by the Central Excise Authority under Sections 124 and 125 of the EVIDENCE ACT, 1872. That order has been upheld by the learned sessions Judge an revision.

( 2 ) SECTION 125 prohibits any authority from compelling a Magistrate or a Police Officer to say whence he got an information as to the commission of an offence and clothes a Revenue Officer also with the same privilege in so far as it relates to the commission of any offence against public revenue in the following terms :"no Magistrate or Police Officer shall be compelled to say whence be got any information as to the commission of any offence, and no revenue officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence against the public revenue. "explanation :- "revenue Officer" in this section means any officer employed in or about the business of any branch of the public revenue. " central Excise Authorities, from the nature of the duty they perform, are revenue officers within the meaning of Sec. 1 25. Therefore, they are entitled to claim privilege to the extent mentioned in section 125, But the privilege which they claim under section 125 does not extend to withholding the information as to the commission of the offence itself. The privilege claimed is limited to the source from which they get the information as to the commission of any offence against the public revenue and not in regard to the contents of the information. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has directed that while the contents of the information given to the Central excise Collector may be disclosed to the accused, he has taken care to withhold from the accused any information as to the person who gave the information to the Central Excise authorities, The order of the Magistrate, thus wholly complies with the requirements of section 125 and does not call for any interference.

( 3 ) IT, was, however, argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that even the communication to the public

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1972 Supreme(AP) 146

Andhra Pradesh High CourtJudges : C.KONDAIAH, P.RAMACHANDRA RAJUPublic Prosecutor (A.P.) - AppellantVersusPocku Syed Ismail - RespondentDecided On : 09-01-72

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.KONDAIAH, P.RAMACHANDRA RAJU
Public Prosecutor (A.P.) - Appellant
Versus
Pocku Syed Ismail - Respondent
Decided On : 09-01-72