IN RE: SOMESHWAR H. SHELAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER the provisions of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ,the Chief Presidency Magistrate, has referred for the opinion of this Court the following question of law:

(2.) SECTION 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that no statement made by a person to a police -officer in the course of an investigation under Chapter XIV, shall, if reduced into writing, be signed by the person making it. The section provides the circumstances in which such a statement can be used. When a witness whose statement has been reduced into writing is called for the prosecution, the Court shall at the request of the accused refer to the writing and the accused shall be furnished with a copy of it in order that any part of the statement, if duly proved, may be used to contradict the witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. When a part of the statement is so used, any other part may be used in the re -examination of the witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross -examination. Sub -section (2) of Section 162 excludes from its operation a statement falling within the provisions of Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act and does not affect the provisions of Section 27 of that Act.

(3.) UNDER Sub -section (3) of Section 12 of the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance, the Provincial Government have given certain officers of the Commercial Tax Department power to investigate offences under the Ordinance within their respective jurisdictions. In making the reference the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate has pointed out that ever since the ordinance has been in force it has been the practice for these officers to begin an investigation after a complaint has been made to them by raiding the place of business of the dealer who is accused of having committed an offence, or any place where goods believed to belong to him are suspected of having been hoarded and seizing such goods and account books. The investigating officer then draws the attention of the dealer to all the circumstances which point towards his guilt and calls upon him to give an explanation. The dealer's explanation is reduced to writing and is signed by him and attested by witnesses. Sometimes the explanation is incorporated in the search list itself. In such a case the dealer may sign a statement prepared by the investigating officer in which he not only acknowledges the seizure of certain articles from his shop or godown, but also confesses that he has given a statement in respect of them. For example, the statement may say that he first told the investigating officer that he had no stock of certain goods, but that on a search being made such goods were found on his premises. It has apparently also been the practice to take similar statements from persons acquainted with the facts of the case and get them to sign their statements. If a witness turns hostile he is confronted by the prosecution with the statement given to the investigating officer.