RAMENDRA SINGH Vs. MOHIT CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order passed by the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta on September 6, 1967, holding that the accused petitioner was entitled to copies of documents referred to under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) What happened is as follows:--A case was registered against the opposite party in Burtola P.S. under Sections 120B, 124A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11 of the West Bengal Security Act and also of Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act. Investigation was taken over by Central Bureau of Investigation and the opposite party and thers were arrested and removed to custody from time 1o time. The case, however, was not proceeded with and the opposite parties were discharged. Before the order of discharge was made the investigating Officer, Ramendra Singh, filed a petition of complaint against them under Section 120B read with Sections 3, 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act and also under Sections 3, 5 and 9 of the said Act and the opposite parties were summoned. This case also was not proceeded with and the opposite parties were discharged. Thereafter, the present complaint was filed by Ramendra Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who investigated the case and the opposite parties were summoned to stand the trial under Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 (1) (c) of the Official Secrets Act.

(3.) On September 6, 1967, opposite party, Sunil, filed a petition before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate for being furnished with copies of documents, referred to in Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Advocate contended that the case was instituted on the report of the police officer who investigated the case and cognisance was therefore taken under Section 190 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial should therefore be according to procedure laid down in Section 251A of the Act and the petitioner was entitled to copies of documents referred, to in Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, contended that the provision of Section 252 of Code of Criminal Procedure would govern the trial as the present case was instituted on the complaint of Ramendra Singh and cognisance was taken under Section 190 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate held that it was a case started on a police report and as such cognizance was taken under Section 190 (1) (b) and the opposite parties were entitled to get copies of documents mentioned in Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In arriving at his decision the learned Magistrate referred to a single Bench decision of this Court where it was held that the term 'police report' in Section 251-A has been used by the Legislature in a generic sense including both police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also the report of a police officer. The learned Magistrate also held that report of a police officer otherwise than under Section 173 of the Code cannot be a complaint as defined in Section 4 (h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.