L S RAJU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revn. petn. against the order in C. C. No. 2519 of 50-51 on the file of the City Mag. Bangalore, refusing to furnish the petnr. with a copy of the entries in Col. No. 6 of the charge-sheet placed against him.

(2.) The point has come up before this Ct. for consideration several times, & if it has come up before a Bench for consideration, it is because after the amendment of Section 173, Cr. P. C., the opinions expressed in some unreported cases on this aspect of the matter are not uniform & it is desirable to lay down a definite view on this question which often arises in the criminal Cts. Section 178 lays down that the Police report under that section must be in the form prescribed by the Govt. setting forth the names of the parties, the nature of the information, the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case & stating whether the accused (if arrested) has been forwarded in custody, or has been released on his bond. Section 190, Cr. P. C. states that a Mag. can take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a complaint of facts which constituted such offence. It is clear that the report refd. to in this section is the report required Under Section 178, Cr. P. C. It is by this report that the Criminal law is set in motion by the Police before a Mag. The Police Officer is a Public Officer. The report Under Section 173, Cr. P. C. is enjoined on the officer under that section. It is, therefore, a public document within the meaning of Section 74, Evidence Act, according to which documents which form the acts or records of the acts of public officers, whether legislative, judicial or executive are public documents. In the H. Cs. outside Mysore there was a divergence of opinion on this aspect of the matter as is clear by the decisions in Queen Empress v. Arumugam, 20 Mad. 189 and Queen Empress v. Venkataratnam, 19 Mad. 14. The difference was set at rest by the amendment of Section 173, Cr. P. C. by the addition of Clause 4 which is to the effect that a copy of the report under that section should be given to the accused on appln. before the com. mencement of the enquiry or trial.

(3.) So far as Mysore is concerned, no amendment was necessary as this Ct. had taken the view, even before the amendment, that a report Under Section 173, Cr. P. C. was a public document & that the accused was entitled to a copy of it. As observed by Venkataranga lyengar J. in the unreported case Cr. R. P. No. 192 of 43 44; "The point is made clearer by the amendment to Section 173, Cr. P. C.; made by Act VI [6] of 1927." That is, what was clear before is made clearer & the amendment makes no change in the law as understood in Mysore before the amendment.