An inquiry officer under the Railway Property Act does not have the same obligations as a police officer, particularly regarding document disclosure to the accused.

1. This matter upon a reference made by a learned single Judge of this court ariess from a conviction under S.3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act . 1966 (to be hereinafter referred as the Act.).
The questions raised in the case are these:
1. Whether an officer of the Force making an inquiry under S.8(2) read with S.9 of the Act is bound to furnish copies of the statements of persons examined by him under S.173(4) of the Old Code of Criminal Procedure (Corresponding to S.207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973).?
2.Whether, if it is not obligatory upon the prosecution to supply the copies, an accused in order to show the contradiction or inconsistency between the statement of the witness at the trial and what he had stated before the inquiry officer, can call in evidence for the copy for the purposes of S.145 Indian Evidence Act ?
3.If the answer to the above is in the negative, in what manner the trial court should act to ensure a fair trial of the accused?
4.Whether an accused not making a request for copies at the trial can complain of material prejudice being caused to him by the non - supply of such copies at the hearing of the appeal?

2. So far as the first question is concerned, the matter is now settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Srilal Shaw v. State of West Bengal AIR 1975 SC 393 : 1975 Cri LJ 423 ; State of U.P. v. Durga Prasad AIR 1974 SC 2136 : 1974 Cri LJ 1465 and the Assistant Collector of Customs Bombay v. L.R. Melwani AIR 1970 SC 962 : 1970 Cri LJ 885 that where the criminal prosecution is instituted on a private complaint, the documents mentioned in sub-clause (4) of S.173 cannot be made available to the accused. S.173 is attracted only in a case investigated by a police officer under chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Copies of the documents cannot be made available to the accused by taking aid of S.94 also as that section does not empower a Magistrate to direct the prosecution to give copies of any documents to an accused person. In Durga Prasad's case the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the relevant provisions of the Act and the nature and scope of the inquiry contemplated by S.8(1) of the Act. Taking the view that an officer conducting an inquiry under S.8(1) of the Act does not possess all the attributes of an officer in charge of a police station investigating a case under chapter XIV of the Code, Mr. Justice Chandrachud speaking for the court, observed (vide para 17):
"The Officer conducting an inquiry under S.8(1) cannot initiate court proceedings by filing a police report as is evident from the two provisos to S.8(2) of the Act....... The duty cast by proviso (b) on an officer of the Force to make a full report to his official stands in sharp contrast with the duty cast by S.173(1)(a) of the Code on the officer in charge of a police station to submit a report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. On the conclusion of an inquiry under S.8(1), there - fore, if the officer is of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused, he must file a complaint under S.190(1)(a) of the Code in order that the Magistrate concerned may take cognizance of the offence." Further in para 23 it was said:
"The High Court was therefore in error in holding that statements made during the inquiry under S.8(1) of the Act are on a par with statements made during the course of an investigation, that S.162 of the Code applied with full force to the inquiry proceedings and that in