KHATRI IV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises before us for consideration is whether certain documents called for by the Court by its order dated 16th February, 1981 are liable to be produced by the State or their production is barred under some provision of law. The documents called for are set out in the order dated 16th February, 1981 and they are as follows:

(2.) The State has objected to the production of these documents on the ground that they are protected from disclosure under Sections 162 and 172 of the CrPC 1973 and the petitioners are not entitled to see them or to make any use of them in the present proceeding. This contention raises a question of some importance and it has been debated with great fervour on both sides but we do not think it presents any serious difficulty in its resolution, if we have regard to the terms of Sections 162 and 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the State.

(3.) We will first consider the question in regard to the reports submitted by Sh. L.V. Singh, Deputy Inspector General CID (Anti-Dacoity) on 2th December, 1980 and the reports submitted by him 1 and his associates Sh. R.R. Prasad, S.P. (Anti-Dacoity) and Smt. Manjuri Jaurahar, S.P. (Anti-Dacoity) between 10th and 20th January, 1981. These reports have been handed over to us for our perusal by Mr. K.G. Bhagat learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State and it is clear from these reports, and that has also been 1 stated before us on behalf of the State, that by an order dated 28-29th November, 1980 made by the State Government under Section 3 of the Indian Police Act 1861, Sh. (sic) L.V. Singh was directed by the State Government to investigate into 24 cases of blinding of under-trial prisoners and it was in discharge of this official duty entrusted to him that he with the associates Sh. R.R. Prasad and Smt. Manjuri Jaurahar investigated these cases and made these reports. These reports set out the conclusions reached by him as a result of his investigation into these cases. The question is whether the production of these reports is hit by Sections 162 and' 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It may be pointed out that these are the only provisions of law under which the State resists production of these reports. The State has not claimed privilege in regard to these reports under Section 123 or Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. All that is necessary therefore is to examine the applicability of Sections 162 and 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the present base.