J.P. MITTER Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the petitioner was convicted under Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -, in default, to six weeks rigorous imprisonment; and out of the fine, if realised, a sum of Rs. 50/ - was ordered to be paid to P. W. 1 as compensation. Against this order of conviction and sentence the present Rule was issued.

(2.) IN short the prosecution case was that the petitioner had a ferocious Alsatian doe which was allowed to roam on the street without any escort and that the dog had bit persons before the dog bit the complainant on the 17th Feburary 1956 at Deodar Street.

(3.) THE point taken before this Court is that the case which was a cognizable one was investigated under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and hence the petitioner was entitled, under Section 173 (4) of the Code, to a copy before the commencement of the trial, of the first information report recorded under Section 154 and all other relevant documents or extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposed to rely, including the statements and confessions, if any, under Section 164 and the statements recorded under Section 161 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of all the persons whom the prosecution proposed to examine as its witness. As no copy of those statements had beep supplied to him, this non -compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Code deprived the petitioner of the opportunity of confronting the witnesses. It was stated that as only a copy of the chalan was supplied to him, be had reasonable ground for thinking that the investigating officer had not recorded in writing any statement of any witness.