JHUMARLAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the accused Jhumarlal and raises an interesting point of procedure relating to the right of an accused to obtain copies of certain statements made to the police under Section 162, Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE accused petitioner is being prosecuted under Section 182. I. P. C. , in the court of the Second Class Magistrate, Pali. The allegation against him is that he had made a report of theft against certain persons in the police, and this report was investigated, and the police came to the conclusion that it was false and thereby he had rendered himself liable to be proceeded against under Section 182. I. P. C. Consequently, thp Sub-Inspector in charge of police thana, Pali, filed a complaint against the petitioner in the court of the First Class Magistrate. Pali, on the 17th October, 1955, under Section 182. I. P. C. This complaint was thereafter transferred to the court of the Second Class magistrate, pall. The accused was examined on the 1st December, 1955. and the case was posted for evidence for the 10th December, 1955. On the 1st December, 1956. the petitioner applied for being furnished with copies of the statements of the witness or witnesses who had been examined by the police during the course of investigation in connection with the theft case. This application was rejected by the Magistrate. Thereupon the accused went in revision to the Sessions Judge, pali, who also maintained the order of the trial court, The present revision has been filed against that order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the accused raised two contentions in this Court, The first was that the decision of the two courts below declining to give copies of the statements of witnesses' who had been examined by the police in connection with the report of theft filed by him (and which according to him must have led to the filing of the present complaint against him in the court of the Magistrate) was quite wrong, and, secondly, that the complaint filed against him did not fulfil the ingredients of Section 182, I. P. C, at all, and should not, therefore, have been entertained by the Magistrate.