PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. M N GOVINDARAJA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision raises an important question of privilege claimed by a witness under Section 125, Evidence Act. The witness who claims the privilege is P. W. 76 in the lower Court. He, as the Circle Inspector of Police at Ami, was investigating a case under Prohibition Act. When examined as P. W. 76 he filed the account boots of some of the accused which were exhibited as Exs. P. 187, P. 188 and P. 195. In the course of investigation he seized the above account books. In cross-examination a question was asked as to wherefrom-or from whom these account books were seized. Instead of merely giving the name of the person from whom these account books were seized, the Circle Inspector of Police choss to give the answer that the "Exhibits were got from my informant". The next question was "What is the name of the person from whom the books were seized?" Immediately an objection was Mudaliar and Ors. (26.03.1954 -MADHC) Page 2 of 3 raised by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that under Section 125, Evidence Act, he was privileged and that he should not be compelled to disclose the name of the informant. The question as to whether he was privileged under this section from disclosing the name of the person from whom these account books were seized was argued at some length in the lower Court and the lower Court held that the witness was not privileged from disclosing this information. The State has therefore filed this revision against that order.

(2.) THE question is whether, when the account books were seized in the course of investigation, the information regarding the person from whom these books were seized is prohibited from being given under Section 125, Evidence Act. Section 125, Evidence Act, is as follows: