BANKA KANDASWAMY REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The correctness of the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, dt. 23-6-1981, upholding the privilege claimed by the Superintendent of Police C.B. C.I.D. under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act is questioned in this revision.

(2.) Crime No. 35/78 of Vempalli Police Station relating to the murder of one Laxmi Reddy of Kuppalapalli village was investigated into by the Inspector of Police, Pulivendala. The petitioners are being tried for various offences in S.C. No. 110/79 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuddapah. While the case was being investigated into by the local police, a relation of the 1st accused in the said case, has sent a petition dated 31-7-1978 to the D.I.G. of Police alleging that the local police were colluding with the prosecution party and requested investigation to be entrusted to the C.B. C.I.D. Under instructions from the D.I.G. a C.B. C.I.D. Inspector examined some witnesses and submitted a report on 14-9-1978. The accused applied under Section 91, Cr.P.C. to summon - (1) petition dated 31-7-78, (2) statement of witnesses recorded by the Inspector, C.B. C.I.D. during the enquiry conducted by him, and (3) the report of the Inspector, C.B. C.I.D. of the enquiry held by him. The Superintendent of Police C.B. C.I.D. while producing the documents, claimed privilege under Section 124 of the Evidence Act on the ground that "public interests" would suffer by the disclosure. The Addl. Sessions Judge held that the report of the Inspector of Police, C.B. C.I.D. falls within the meaning of a communication made to a public officer in official confidence and that public interests would suffer by the disclosure of the contents of the said report. Mr. Padmanabha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that he is not pressing for the production of that part of the report containing the opinion expressed by the Inspector, C.B. C.I.D. as a result of the enquiry he made into the case. He has, however, pressed this revision questioning the correctness of the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge regarding the petition dated 31-7-78 and the statements of witnesses recorded by the Inspector, C.B. C.I.D. during the enquiry held by him.

(3.) Neither the petition dated 31-7-78 nor the statements recorded by the Inspector C.B. C.I.D. constitute documents relating to any affairs of State. They do not also answer the description of communications made to a public officer in official confidence. According to the petitioners, the statements recorded by the Inspector of Police C.B. C.I.D. contain certain information which the petitioners can use for contradicting those witnesses when they figured as witnesses in the sessions case and withholding of such documents would prejudice their interests in having a fair trial. It appears that the statements recorded by the Inspector, C.B. C.I.D. have been incorporated as part of the report which the Inspector C.B. C.I.D. has submitted to the S.P. C.B. C.I.D. Hyderabad. While there cannot be any valid objection for the S.P. C.B. C.I.D. to produce the petition dated 31-7-1978, it has to be considered whether the privilege was properly claimed and upheld with regard to that portion of the report containing the statements of witnesses recorded by the Inspector, C.B. C.I.D. during the enquiry conducted by him.