Matha Appa Rao vs Naralasetti Suryaprakasa Rao

Subba Rao, J.—The question in this revision petition is whether a District Superintendent of Police can plead privilege u/s 124 of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of statements made by the witnesses in an investigation made by his subordinates. The accused is a Sub-Inspector of Police. A complaint was made against him to the District Superintendent of Police and on the complaint he directed the Circle Inspector of Police to make an investigation. During the course of the investigation, statements were recorded from various persons. On enquiry the police did not take any action. Then a private complaint was filed in the Court of the Sub-Magistrate, Vizianagaram. The accused filed an application for calling for the statement recorded by the Inspector for the purpose of contradicting the witnesses. The District Superintendent of Police in his letter, dated 6th March 1950 (Re. 6810/R3/99) claimed privilege in respect of those statements. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Vizianagaram, accepted his plea and held that the statements could not be given to the accused for the purpose of contradiction. A revision petition was filed to the District Magistrate of Visakhapatnam against that order and he held that those statements were made in the course of a public enquiry by the police and the District Superintendent could not plead privilege in respect of these statements. But, in view of the remarks made by Govinda Menon J. in The King v. Kotrappa 1948 M.W.N. (Cri.) 129 he thought that it was not a fit case for submission to the High Court and therefore he dismissed the revision petition. After the revision petition was dismissed, the Sub-Magistrate refused the request of the accused on the ground that his previous order had become final inasmuch as the revision petition was dismissed by the District Magistrate. The present revision petition is filed by the accused against that order.

Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act runs thus:

No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence when he considers that the public interests would Buffer by the disclosure.

This Section can therefore be applied only when the communication was made to a public officer in official confidence. The statements made by the witnesses in an investigation made by the Circle Inspector under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be considered to be statements made in official confidence. The accused is certainly entitled to use those statements to contradict the prosecution witnesses.

The order of the lower Court is therefore set aside.