BUDDHADASA, V. A. MAHENDRAN

1956 Present: Weerasooriya, J., and H. N. G. Fernando, J.

BUDDHADASA, Petitioner, and A. MAHENDRAN (Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Matara), Respondent

S. C. 315-Application for a Writ of Mandamus

Information Book-Statements of persons recorded therein-Their evidentiary value in civil proceedings-Sight of a litigant to obtain copies of them-" Public documents "-" Right to inspect "-Proof of Public Documents Ordinance, s. 3- Evidence Ordinance, ss. 74, 76,100-Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 121 (1), 122- Mandamus.

A party to an action is not entitled to resort to section 3 of the Proof of Public Documents Ordinance in order to obtain certified copies of statements taken down in an Information Book in terms of sections 121 (1) and 122 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code unless he can show that at the trial of the action it will be necessary for him to adduce proof of the contents of those statements.

A statement reduced into writing by a police officer in terms of section 122 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is not a statement of the witness, a record of which it purports to be, but is the statement of the police officer as to what the witness told him. Therefore, a certified copy of such a statement cannot be used in civil proceedings either to corroborate or to contradict the witness whose statement it purports to be.

A first information recorded in terms of section 121 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is of little or no value if the informant, after having access to the statement and becoming aware of its contents, seeks to use it to corroborate his own evidence.

Semble : In the absence of specific statutory provision, a person is not entitled to inspect a public document and to be furnished with a certified copy of it. The documents which a person " has a right to inspect " within the meaning of section 76 of the Evidence Ordinance are only those in respect of which the right of inspection is expressly conferred by enactment.

The Attorney-General v. Geetin Singho (1956) 57 N. L. R. 289, dissented from.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandamus.

A collision took place between a motor car driven by A and a motorcycle ridden by B in consequence of which B received injuries. The accident was reported to the police by A on the same day and his statement was recorded by a police constable in terms of section 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter, a police sergeant conducted an investigation Into the cause of the accident in the course of which he recorded the statement of B at the hospital and also the statement of a person, C, at the scene of the incident. Subsequently B filed an action suing A. in a sum of Rs. 50,000 as damages for the injuries sustained by him. Pending the trial, A made the present application to the Supreme Court praying for a writ of Mandamus on the officer in charge of the Police Station requiring him, in terms of section 3 of the Proof of Public Documents Ordinance, to issue to him a copy of the statement made by A at the Police Station and also copies of the statements of B and C as recorded by the Police in the course of their investigation into the accident.

Walter Jayawardene, with A. S. Vanigasooriyar, for the petitioner.

D. St. C. B. Jansze, Q.C., Solicitor-General, with L. B. T. Premaratne, Crown Counsel, and V. S. A. Pullenayegum, Crown Counsel, for the respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

August 9,1956. Weerasooriya, J.-

On the 7th December, 1953, a collision took place at a junction of two roads within the town limits of Matara between a motor car driven by the petitioner and a motor-cycle ridden by one N. G. A. Samarasekera in consequence of which the latter received injuries. The accident was reported at the Matara Police Station by the petitioner on the same day and his statement was recorded by Police Constable Weeratunge who was on duty at the station. Thereafter Police Sergeant Pathmanathan conducted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document