PREM CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, by his order dated 28 - -3 - -1972. On receiving the reference, notices were sent to the State as well as to Sri Prem Chandra the accused who was revisionist before the Sessions Judge, on whose revision this reference has arisen. Prem Chandra filed a revision against the order dated 27 - -9 - -1971, passed by Sri H.S. Dhavan, Special Railway Magistrate, Fatehgarh, rejecting the application of Prem Chandra for furnishing the copies of documents and statements, which the prosecution wanted to rely in support of its case. This application by Prem Chandra purports to have been filed u/S. 173(4) of the CrPC, which runs thus: -

(2.) THE revisionist Prem Chandra was being prosecuted u/S. 3 of the Rly. Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1965. It was alleged that on 2 - -5 - -1971, Prem Chandra was found in possession of a stolen dynamo belt (Ext. 2) belonging to the N.E. Rly. Hence he was prosecuted u/S. 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. On 20 - -9 - -1971, Prem Chandra appeared before the learned Special Magistrate and he was given a copy of the complaint. Thereafter, 27 - -9 - -1971 was fixed for further hearing of the case. On 27 - -9 - -1971, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 and a charge u/S. 3 of the said Act was framed against Prem Chandra. The case was fixed for final hearing on 5 - -10 - -1971. The accused Prem Chandra applied on that date that the copies of all the documents and the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation and upon which the prosecution wanted to rely, should be furnished to him under the aforesaid provision of the CrPC. The -Magistrate passed the following order:

(3.) BEFORE the Sessions Judge, no other provision of the said Act was brought to his notice, as has been stated by him in his reference order. He has, therefore, held that S. 8 provides the procedure for in inquiry or an investigation against an accused of any charge under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. He has referred to the aforesaid ruling reported quoted supra and has stated that while interpreting sub -S. (2) of S. 8 this court has observed that sub -Cl. (2) of the aforesaid section makes it evident that an officer of the force may exercise the same powers and shall be subject to the same provisions as the officer -in -charge of the police -station may exercise when investigating a cognizable offence. He has, therefore, held that it was obvious that although the word "inquiry" has been used in S. 8, it amounts to an "investigation" under the CrPC and the powers and duty of an officer of the Rly. Protection Force are analogous to that of Investigating Officer conducting investigation of a cognizable offence under the CrPC. He has further relied upon the observation of this court in the said case that an officer of the Rly. Protection Force while holding an inquiry against the arrested person is subject to the limitations placed upon the police officer under the CrPC and has gone to the extent of quoting the words of the said ruling that u/S. 8 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, an officer of the force is to be guided by the provisions of the CrPC in respect of that inquiry, which amounts to an investigation. The learned Sessions Judge has thus held that in view of the pronouncement of this court aforesaid the "inquiry" amounts to an "investigation" under the CrPC and the authority i.e. the officer of the Rly. Protection Force while holding an inquiry shall follow the same procedure as is prescribed under the CrPC and shall perform the same duties which are enjoined upon an officer -in -charge of a police -station while investigating a cognizable case. In the opinion of the learned Judge, therefore, the case under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 starts not on a complaint, but on a police report and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer of the case to have furnished or caused to be furnished to the accused, free of cost, a copy of the report u/sub -S. (1) of S. 154, CrPC, i.e. the F.I.R., and of all other documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution wanted to rely and this should have been done before the commencement of the inquiry or trial, as provided in sub -S. (4) of S. 175 of the CrPC. The Sessions Judge went on to hold that admittedly that has not been done in the present case. Hence the demand for furnishing such documents mentioned in sub -S. (4) of S. 173, CrPC was not only legitimate, but the right of the accused has been denied by the Magistrate and illegal order was passed by the Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge has also went on to hold that no authority has been cited to support any contrary view. He has, therefore, held even on the point of propriety also that the copies of such documents should have been furnished to the accused Prem Chandra before the commencement of the trial, because that would have enabled him to know the facts and circumstances, which the prosecution wanted to use against him in support of the charge. It appears and has been stated by the Sessions Judge that no authority of law was brought to his notice under which such supply of copies is forbidden. The ruling aforesaid and the law laid down by this court in, 1971 AWR 175 (supra) was taken to be a settled law and in his opinion every procedure is meant to subserve the ends of justice. In the opinion of the Sessions Judge, the ends of justice would have been better served, had these copies been supplied to the revisionist Prem Chandra before the commencement of the trial. He has, therefore, held that the order passed by the Magistrate, refusing to grant copies of the documents as provided u/S. 173 (4) of the CrPC was not only illegal but was also improper and was liable to be set aside; and, therefore, this reference has been made.