Chedi Prasad Singh and Others vs Emperor

Sen, J.—The petitioners made an application, on the 7th March 1927, for copies of statements made by the witnesses to the police in the course of investigation. The Court thereupon made an order in these terms Copy forwarded to the Copying Department. Copy may be granted of the portions marked in the diary on usual payment.

As the petitioners were not furnished with copies as prayed for, they made Another application on the 17th March to the same effect. On this petition an Order was passed on the 25th March in these terms.

I have seen the statements of the witnesses taken before the police again. There being no contradiction, no copy can be granted.

The petitioners thereupon apply to this Court for the order refusing copies to be set aside.

On turning to the explanation it appears that the circumstances, under which the Court was led to refuse the application for copies, are as follows: There were two witnesses who had made statements to the police during investigation: Singeshwar and Aklu Gorhi. Singeshwar''s statement had been recorded in full. As regards Aklu Gorhi the police had noted down these words: "Aklu Gorhi supports Singeshwar." Now Singeshwar''s statement recorded by the police shows that he did not mention the name of one of the accused whose name was mentioned by Aklu in Court. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate observes:

Although there was no contradiction in Singeshwar''s own statement made in Court and his statement made before the police, if the words "Aklu Gorhi supports Singeshwar" are considered to mean that Aklu made a statement before the police which agreed with Singeshwar''s statement in every detail, then it will help the accused in their defence.

On this ground, apparently, the application for copies was refused.

Now the provisions of Section 162 are imperative that the Court shall, on the request of the accused, direct that the accused be furnished with a copy. The use that that copy may be put to later on may be the subject-matter of inquiry, when the proper time arises, and then it may be open to the Court to accept or reject the contention of the accused that he is making a proper use of the copy in terms of the section.

But it is quite clear that a refusal to grant copies can only be made if the requirements of the Prov. 2, Section 162, are satisfied, namely if the Court is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial, or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, it shall record such opinion before excluding such parts from the copy of the statement furnished to the accused.

In this case no reasons, as contemplated in the section are recorded; all that the learned Magistrate says, and that, in his explanation, is, that possibly there was really no contradiction; but if the copy of the statement was given to the accused it might help the accused in their defence.

The application for copies should not have been refused on the mere ground that it might not help the defence or that possibly there was no contradiction.

The order made by the learned Magistrate is set aside.