LAWS(BOM)-2006-2-48

RANJIT SATARDEKAR Vs. JOE MATHIAS

Decided On February 16, 2006
RANJIT SATARDEKAR Appellant
V/S
JOE MATHIAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioners challenge the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application which was filed by the petitioners for summoning the Inspector of Panaji Town police to produce the statement recorded under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of PW. 1 which forms part of the records of criminal Case No. 146/03/b pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, panaji. The impugned Order is dated 27. 10. 05 and has been passed in Special Civil Suit No. 102/04/b.

(3.) PLACING reliance in the decision in the matter of Malakala Surya Rao and ors. Vs. Gundapuneedi Janakamma, reported in air 1964 AP 198, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court clearly erred in rejecting the application on assumption that the statement recorded under Section 162 of Cr. P. C. cannot be used in civil proceedings. The learned advocate appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, drawing attention to the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Khatri and ors etc. Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1068 submitted that the Apex court therein has clearly held that such statements can be used in evidence in civil proceedings provided such statements are relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. He. however, further submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Khatri and ors etc. (supra) the law on the point of admissibility of the statement recorded under Section 162 cr. P. C. in civil proceedings is well settled and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the court may, by consent, set aside the same with directions to expedite the disposal of the proceedings as there is already an order of this court to expedite and dispose of the same within the specified period. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in Khatri's case, it is apparent that though there is protection granted in relation to the statement recorded under Section 162, Cr. P. C. , as regards the use thereof in civil proceedings, the Apex court has held that: