Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJESHWAR SINGH, J.
Dr. Sanjay Singh - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 163 of 1989
Decided on : May 12, 1989
Section 161 CrPC empowers the police officer to examine witnesses orally and record their statements. Section 162 CrPC prohibits the witness from signing the statement. Section 173 CrPC requires the Investigating Officer to forward to the Magistrate the statements of all witnesses proposed to be examined. Section 207 CrPC mandates the Magistrate to furnish the accused with copies of statements recorded under section 161 CrPC. The court interpreted these sections to hold that relevant statements should be recorded and copies made available to the accused before the trial. The court also considered section 190 CrPC, which allows the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence based on police reports and statements of witnesses examined by the police. The court emphasized the importance of fair procedure and the accused's right to know the case against them.
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed a revision against the Magistrate's order rejecting their request for copies of witness statements. The accused are being prosecuted for murder under various sections of the IPC and Arms Act. The State argued that the witnesses were of a formal nature and their statements were not recorded under section 161 CrPC. The revisionists relied on cases stating that copies of statements must be supplied. The State relied on cases stating that the High Court does not ordinarily interfere at an interlocutory stage. The court analyzed relevant sections of the CrPC and concluded that the investigating officer is not free to not record statements of witnesses and refuse to give copies. The court emphasized the importance of fair procedure and the accused's right to know the case against them. The court held that relevant statements should be recorded and copies made available to the accused before the trial. The court provided guidelines for categorizing witnesses and determining whether their statements should be recorded and supplied to the accused. The revision was disposed of and the Magistrate was directed to proceed accordingly.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed relevant sections of the CrPC and emphasized the importance of fair procedure and the accused's right to know the case against them. The court held that relevant statements should be recorded and copies made available to the accused before the trial. The court provided guidelines for categorizing witnesses and determining whether their statements should be recorded and supplied to the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The investigating officer is not free to not record statements of witnesses and refuse to give copies. The accused have the right to know the case against them and effective cross-examination requires prior knowledge of witness statements. Relevant statements should be recorded and copies made available to the accused before the trial.
Result: The revision was disposed of and the Magistrate was directed to proceed accordingly.
Rajeshwar Singh
1. The accused filed this revision against the order of the Magistrate rejecting their prayer for supply of copies of statements of some witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution at the trial. The revision is being disposed of finally with the consent of the parties.
2. The facts are that these seven revisionists are being prosecuted in connection with murder under sections 302, 120-B IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Some of the offences are with the aid of section 34 IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance and copies of the statements of the witnesses were given to the accused. There are,1-78 witnesses, whom the prosecution proposes to examine, but copies of their statements were not given to the accused The case of the State was that they are witness ess of formal nature and their statements were not recorded under section 161 CrPC. The accused requested the Magistrate that the State should be ordered to give copies of these statements to the accused. The learned Magistrate rejected the prayer saying that the statements of these witnesses were not recorded and only copies of those statements, which are recorded under section 161 CrPC, are given. It is against this order of the Magistrate that the present revision has been filed.
The State has not pleaded specifically the bar of section 397 (2) CrPC which provides that the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order. Even if it would have been pleaded, probably that could not be of much assistance.
3. The expression 'interlocutory order' has been used in section 397 (2) CrPC in a restricted sense. It denotes orders of purely interim and temporary nature which do not decide or touch the main rights or liabilities of the parties, and the order which substantially affects the rights of the accused is not an interlocutory order (V. C. Shukla, 1980 Supreme Court, 962 per Singhal, On that reasoning an order of the nature, which may ultimately vitiate the trial, if copies are not given, may not be treated to be an interlocutory order. But the position remains that either way this revision is decided, it will not terminate the proceedings and proceedings will continue. So, it may be possible to say that the order is an interlocutory one. Still, the matter is so important that it will affect the entire trial. Ultimately, it may be found that the trial is vitiated for not giving copies. Hence inherent powers of the court, saved by section 482 CrPC, may be employed even if it is held that the revision is not maintainable, the impugned order being an interlocutory one.
4. The 1973 Code put a bar on the power of revision in order to facilitate expeditious disposal of cases, but in section 482 CrPC it was provided that nothing in this Code, which would include section 397 (2), shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court. On a harmonious construction it should be held that the power provided under section 397 (2) operates only in exercise of revisional power of the High Court, meaning thereby that the High Court will have no power to interfere in relation to any interlocutory order. But, in such a case the inherent powers will come into play there being no other provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. In case the impugned order clearly brings out a situation which is an abuse of the process of the court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference of the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in section 397 (2) CrPC can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court. Such cases would of course necessarily be few and far between, (Madhu Limye, 1978 AWC 96 SC). One such case can be the present one, wherein if the proceedings are allowed to go on and ultimately it is found that copies of statements should have been given, then the accused may be in a position to assail the entire trial as
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
