PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. THOTA CHENNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 561-fl of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the expunction of certain remarks from the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Hyderabad Sessions Division, at Secunderabad, in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1952, which has coma up to this Court as Referred Trial No. 8 of 1962, in which v/e have just delivered judgment. The remarks sought to be expunged are to be found in paragraphs 18, 15 and 33 of the learned Judges judgment. The observations in paragraph 18 relate to Sri Nizam Yar Khan, a Deputy Collector who was working in December, 1961, in Hyderabad City as a Land Acquisition Officer for the Heavy Electrical Project, and who figured as Prosecution Witness No. 42 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1962, The observations in paragraph 33 of the judgment relate to Sri N. Ramachandran, the Deputy Superintendent of Ponce, C.I.D., Crime Branch, Hyderabad, who had conducted ha investigation in the murder case and who was examined as Prosecution Witness No. 44, The observations in paragraph 33 of the judgment relate to no one in particular but to a press conference stated to Save been held by a men Police Official when the investigation into the crime was in progress. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the above observations which amount to aspersions, are unjustified and should to expunged by this court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) As regards Sri Nizam Yar Khan (P. W. 42), this is what the learned Sessions Judge has said in paragraph IB of his judgment: "In this connection, it may be relevant to point out that P. W. 42, Deputy Collector, excused himself from assisting the police in the further discoveries made on the ground that he had other work and that the next day was working day for him. P. W. 44 requested him to fie present for further establishment of facts, but in spite of his request the Deputy Collector did not choose to assist a public servant engaged in investigating into a grave crime. I am constrained to comment on the lamentable lack of sense of duty on the part of the Deputy Collector in this failure to be present during the next stage of investigation. He has admitted that he had exercised magisterial powers and I am surprised how arty Deputy Collector who had exercised magisterial powers could act in contempt of the lawful authority of a public servant who requisitioned his services. He should have known that he was a competent and an important witness for the prosecution in the establishment of its case and I am at a loss to Know, now He could have felt that his presence was not of much material consequence at the time of discovery of the facts consequent on the information furnished by the accused. I am surprised that a Government servant of the rank or e Deputy Collector who had exercised magisterial powers should be so oblivious to his duties as a public servant when he was legally bound to be present as an independent witness, at the investigation by the police." It may be mentioned that Sri Nizam Yar Khan is a Deputy Collector who was then working as a Land Acquisition Officer in Hyderabad City. On 10-12-1961, which was a Sunday, he was on his way to his club but as he was requested by the Investigating Officer (P. W. 44) to officiate as a panch witness, he readily agreed and stayed with the investigation officer from 2 p.m. till about 7 p.m. that day. During this period, the Investigating Officer examined the accused, suspected to be involved in the murder of Suryanarayanamma in Vijayanagar Colony, and recorded a detailed statement from him and later effected the recoveries of some of the stolen items of jewellery from the house of the accused. Sri Nizam Yar Khan extended his co-operation to the Investigating Officer in an ungrudging manner. The investigation was closed for that day at about 6 p.m. and when the Investigating officer requested Shri Nizam Yar Khan to be present the next nay also, the latter informed him that the next day was a working day and as he had some important official work to attend to, fie would not be able to be present. The Investigating Officer was apparently satisfied with this explanation and did not insist upon the presence of Sri Nizam Yar Khan the next day presumably because there were other panch witnesses to assist him in the further investigation. In this situation, we are unable to agree with the learned Sessions Judge that there was any dereliction of public duty on the part of Sri Nizam Yar Khan to warrant the passing of severe strictures on him an Nizam Yar Khan is himself a public servant and he excused himself because he had public functions to perform on 11-12-1961. The learned Judge was not justified in saying that Sri Nizam Yar Khan acted "In contempt of the lawful authority of a public servant who requisitioned his services"; that he had acted with a "lamentable lack of sense of duty"; and that fie was "oblivious to his duties as public servant." We therefore direct that the whole of paragraph 18 be expunged from the judgment of the Court below.

(3.) The next passage which is sought to tie expunged from the judgment is contained in paragraph 15 of the judgment. It runs thus; "It is no doubt, true that instead of closing the investigation on each day at 6 p.m., and sending the accused to the Central Crime Station for lock-up, the Investigating Officer with his experience and training in Scotland Yaw and the number of assistants he had to help him, and also the other facilities like quick conveyance, could nave easily covered the places or contacted the witnesses the accused promised to point out, leading to the discovery of the material objects in one day when information was already available instead of prolonging the investigation by requesting the Magistrate (P. W. 34) on 11-12-1961 for further remand of the accused to police custody. I cannot but agree with the comment and observe that there has been some delay in making quick discoveries in a capital crime like this when what was needed at that juncture was speed and utmost caution."