SHYAMLAL SHARMA Vs. KING EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two references to this Pull Bench have been connected together because the questions referred in both of them depend foe 'their decision on the interpretation of Section 162, Criminal P. C. In either case the applicant is a railway employee who has been convicted of an offence of receiving illegal gratification under Section 161, Penal Code; in either case a police trap 'was laid to capture the accused red-handed in the commission of the crime ; in either ease the services of a Magistrate were employed to witness the commission of the crime ; in either case the Magistrate recorded a report detailing the events that took place in his presence and the manner in which the trap was laid ; and in either case the Magistrate made free use of the report to refresh his memory while deposing as a witness. It was contended in both these cases, when they came up for hearing before this Court, that the depositions of the Magistrates were inadmissible because they had made use of their reports, in contravention of the provisions of Section 162, Criminal P. C., and should therefore be excluded from consideration.

(2.) Applicant Shyam Lai Sharma in Criminal Revision No. i486 of 1946 was an Assistant Goods Clerk at Kathgodam railway station at the time when he is alleged to have committed the offence and applicant Ram Prakash in criminal Revision No. 184 of 1947 was the Station Master of Panki railway station at the time when he is alleged to have accepted the bribe. These cases will hereinafter be referred to as the Kathgodam and the Panki cases respectively. The questions referred for decision in the two cases, though allied are not identical. It appears, however, that the question referred in the Kathgodam case can be answered on the basis of the decision of the points involved in the Panki case. I propose therefore to take up that case first.

(3.) The relevant facts of the Panki case are as follows: Ahibaran Singh, a Sub-Inspector of the Special Police Establishment, Delhi, received information 'that the applicant Ram Prakash had agreed to accept a bribe from one Amant Ullah, He made an application (Ex. P.-13) to the Additional Distriot Magistrate of Kawnpur on 31st March 1946, in which he stated that Ram Prakash had agreed to accept a bribe and asked for permission under Section 155 (2), Criminal P. C, to investigate the case. He then went on to state that the bribe would be paid to Ram Prakash that very evening, and ended by making a re-quest that a First Class Magistrate be deputed to witness the transaction, to prepare a report embodying the events and to make over all the documents to him to complete the investigation. The Additional District Magistrate granted both the requests. He permitted Ahibaran Singh to investigate the offence and deputed a First Class Magistrate, Mr. Ibrahim, to comply with the request of Ahibaran Singh. Mr. Ibrahim witnessed the occurrence, arrested the applicant, searched his person, recorded certain statements and then prepared a report, embodying an account of all that he had done and of all that had happened in his presence, and made over that report, together with all the documents in connection with the case, to Ahibaran Singh. This report is Ex. p. 10 of the record and will, hereinafter, be referred to as such.