STATE Vs. DHIRAJLAL MANEKLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference raises a short but rather an interesting point of law, and the point of law is as to the construction of Sub -section (4) of Section 207A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sub -section (4) says: The Magistrate shall then proceed to take the evidence of such persons, if any, as may be produced by the prosecution as witnesses to the actual commission of the offence alleged;... and the point is whether under this sub -section it is obligatory upon the prosecution to produce before the Magistrate at the stage of the committal inquiry all or any of the persons who might have witnessed the actual commission of the offence or whether it is left to the discretion of the prosecution to decide about it.

(2.) THERE is no doubt that under this sub -section the Magistrate is bound to take the evidence of such persons as are produced before him by the prosecution as being witnesses to the actual commission of the offence, The subject of controversy is whether the prosecution is bound to produce before the Magistrate at the stage of the inquiry all or any of the persons who might be witnesses to the actual commission of the offence. A Division Bench of the Saurashtra High Court, as it then was, consisting of Shah C.J. and Baxi J., took the view that under Sub -section (4) of Section 207A, it was obligatory upon the prosecution to produce before the Magistrate persons who might have witnessed the actual commission of the offence for their evidence being taken. Mr. Justice Chainani, before whom the mattercame on reference by the Sessions Judge of Madhya Saurashtra, felt that, upon the language of Sub -section (4), it was possible to take a different view, and he referred the case to a Division Bench of this Court.

(3.) NOW , the Saurashtra High Court, as it then was, has taken the view that the provision contained in the words 'as may be produced by the prosecution' in Sub -section (4) is not discretionary, but it is mandatory, and it requires the prosecution to produce before the Magistrate persons who might be witnesses to the actual commission of the offence. According to this view, the production of such witnesses is obligatory upon the prosecution, and not merely optional resting with the discretion of the prosecution. In our view, with respect, this construction of Sub -section (4) is neither in consonance with the object of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act No. XXVI of 1955 nor justified by the language of the sub -section. It is a well -settled rule of construction that the words of a statute must be so construed as would harmonise with and promote the object for which the statute is enacted. As pointed out by the learned Chief Justice who delivered the judgment of the Bench in Arunachalam Swami v. Bombay State : AIR1956Bom695 the object of the Legislature in enacting Section 207A was to effect a radical change in the procedure relating to inquiry into cases instituted on Police reports and triable by the Court of Session or High Court. Before the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act No. XXVI of 1955 was passed by the Legislature, the procedure relating to the committal inquiry into cases instituted upon Police reports and those instituted otherwise than upon Police reports was regulated by Section 208 as it then stood. It was an elaborate procedure. The Legislature intended to introduce expedition in that procedure, so far as the inquiry into cases instituted upon Police reports was concerned, and it was with that intention that the Legislature enacted Section 207A. The old Section 208 was split up into two sections by the Act No. XXVI of 1955, and the two sections are the present Sections 207A and 208. Under the new Section 208, the procedure relating to the committal inquiry into cases instituted otherwise than upon Police reports, which obtained before the passing of the Act No. XXVI of 1955, was maintained. But under Section 207A, the old procedure relating to inquiry into cases instituted upon Police reports was radically changed, and the change was made with a view to bring to an expeditious conclusion the inquiry prior to the commitment of the accused. Now, if we were to construe the words: 'such persons, if any, as may be produced by the prosecution' in Sub -section (4) as casting an obligation upon the prosecution to produce before the Magistrate at the inquiry stage all the persons who might be witnesses to the actual commission of the offence, the construction would militate against the object underlying the enactment of the sub -section itself. Indeed, such a construction, instead of introducing expedition in the inquiry proceedings, would bring about a contrary result. It would tend to make the inquiry even more protracted than under the old procedure. Under the old Section 208, it was left to the discretion of the prosecution to produce, at the stage of the committal inquiry, such witnesses as it might. It was not bound to produce all witnesses, not even all 'eye -witnesses'; and even so, the Legislature considered that procedure rather elaborate and wanted to speed it up. In our view, with respect, if the construction placed by the Division Bench of the Saurashtra High Court upon Sub -section (4) were to be accepted, it would not only not promote the object of the Legislature for which it enacted Sub -section (4), but would tend to produce an opposite result.