Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by Delhi Administration to revise the order of the Chief Metropolitan Megistrate dated June 30, 1980. The respondent was arrested in connection with the murder of Bawa Gurbachan Singh and his body guard Pratap Singh. The investigation is still proceeding ; no charge sheet has been filed.

( 2 ) IN the course of investigation autopsy was performed by the police surgeon, Dr. Bharat Singh. His two post-mortem reports and a medico legal examination report are at present in the custody of the inuestigation agency. The respondent made an application for copies of these documents on the ground that they are public documents and he is entitled to certified copies on payment of requisite fee. The Megistrate has ordered the prosecution to supply copies of the reports. Form his order the Administration has come in revision.

( 3 ) THE matter first came before Charanjit Talwar J. He referred it to a larger bench in view of the importance of the question involved. Now we have heard counsel for the parties. Talwar J. has prepared the judgment which I have had the advantage of reading. I so entirely agree with him that I really need no more than express my concurrence not only with the conclusion at which he has arrived, but also with the reasoning by which he arrived at it. As, however, the points which have been raised and argued are important, I will state shortly the grounds of my decision.

( 4 ) THE police surgeon has made his reports under section 174 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The object of that section is merely to ascertain the cause of death; hence the enquiry under that section should be confined to that purpose only and should not be extended for the purpose of finding out the persons who cause the death, (See Ghaman Lal v. Emperor, A. I. R. 1940 Lahore 210 (214 ). That section appears in Gh. XII which deals with the "information to the police and their powers to investigate. " The object of investigation is to collect evidence. At this stage the policeman is performing the administrative task of detection and has not begun the legal work of prosecution. But since the enquiry in this phase is natural and directed against no one in particular, ought the results be made available for the benefit of any one who may eventually be accused?

( 5 ) AT this stage the police officer is endeavouring to discover the author of a crime. He is trying to track or trace the criminal. The second phase of the enquiry will begin when the suspect become the accused. But we are at the first stage now.

( 6 ) THE medical reports are about the cause of death. They are not evidence that a murder has been committed. They do not fix any responsibility for the commission of crime. They are in the nature of a preliminary investigation. However valuable for certain purposes, the result of medical examination conducted by the police surgeon cannot in law be treated as prima facie evidence against the respondent. It cannot be so treated because it is res inter alio acta (a transaction between others does not prejudice one who -was not a party to it. ). It merely amounts to opinion of the doctor as to the cause of death.

( 7 ) THE only use of the medical officer s report will be to assist the police in. getting up the case and to refresh the memory of the medical officer at the time of giving his deposition. This deposition must be recorded de novo and at length in the presence of the accused. Punjab Police Rule 25 : 47 says that "the report shall be placed with the police file of the case and may be used by the medical officer to refresh his memory when giving evidence. "

( 8 ) THE question for consideration now is whether copies of the medical reports of the police surgeon under section 174 (3) can be granted at this stage, that is, before the filing of the charge sheet.

( 9 ) COUNSEL for the respondent claims that the medical reports are public documents under section 74 of the Evidence Act and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document