S S M SUBRAMANIAM CHETTIAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION by accused i to 3 in P. R. C. 9 of 1965 on the file of the Special District Magistrate, Coimbatore, to revise the order of the said Magistrate rejecting their applications for grant of copies of statements of witnesses examined before the District Revenue Officer, Salem.

(2.) PETITIONERS are being proceeded against for charges of rioting, criminal trespass, mischief, attempt to murder etc. , alleged to have been committed by them during the Anti-Hindi agitation on 10. 2-1965 at Komarapalayam. There was an enquiry by the District Revenue Officer in respect of the Anti-Hindi agitation and rioting on 10. 2. 1965, and statements of witnesses were recorded by him. The learned Public Prosecutor raised some doubt, whether the said enquiry was under P. S. O. 145, corresponding to the old P. s. o. 167. But it is clear from the prior order of the Special District Magistrate, which came up in revision before me, that the contention of the Special Public Prosecutor was that the enquiry made by the D. B. O. was one under P. S. O. 145. The D. B. O. filed an affidavit that it was not a judicial or a quasi judicial enquiry, that the enquiry was not conducted under any Statute and that the enquiry was only a fact finding enquiry ordered under the executive instructions of the Government with the object of ascertaining whether the opening of fire by the police was justifiable or not. Originally, privilege was claimed under S. 123 of the Indian Evidence Act on the strength of the affidavit of the D. B. O. and it was upheld by the Special District Magistrate. In Cri. R. C. 52 of 1966 I set aside the order on the ground that the privilege should be claimed by the Head of the Department, as held by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. S. S. Singh , But, when the matter went back before the Special District Magistrate, the privilege under Section 123 was not pressed, but privilege was claimed under Section 134 of the Evidence Act.

(3.) THE copy applications filed by the petitioners were not only in respect of prior statements recorded in the enquiry under P. S. C. 145 of persons who were to be examined as witnesses in the P. B. C, cases, but also of reports made by the D. B. 0. But the reports are confidential communications by the D. R. O. to the Government and the privilege claimed in respect of the same cannot be and was not disputed. Hence the only question to be considered in this petition is whether there could be any privilege in respect of the statements of witnesses recorded by the D. R. O.