AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 225 wordsCoutts, J.—The ground on whish this application for revision was admitted was an allegation that the Investigating Polios 0(filer read over the whole of the Police diary for the purpose of refreshing his memory and that when an. application for inspection of the diary was made it was refused.
On reading the explanation of the Magistrate and the orders which were passed by the Magistrate on the application made at the time, it appears that what occurred was that the investigation officer, when in the witness-box, was asked about a certain date and the names of certain persons and the Court directed him to give the date and the names from the Police diary. This the witness did. The defence thereupon asked for an inspection of the whole diary. This was not allowed; but the Magistrate offered an inspection of the date and the names in respect of which the witness had refreshed his memory from the diary. This, however, was refused, I can find nothing in the law which entitles the defence to an inspection of anything more than that portion of the dairy from which the witness refreshed his memory, and, in my opinion, there was no illegality or irregularity in the procedure of the Magistrate.
I see no reason to interfere and I would dismiss this application.
Das, J.—I agree.