MURTIZA KHAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUNJE , A.J.C. 1. This order also disposes of Criminal Revision No. 356 of 1929. These two applications in revision are filed against introductory orders passed by the S.D. Magistrate, Waraseoni, in committal proceedings No. 81 of 1929 with respect to an offence Under Section 302, I.P.C. The first order challenged is the order rejecting the applicant's petition requesting the Court to examine certain Police Officers as Court witnesses. These Police Officers are said to have been in charge of the preliminary investigation into the offence and thus alleged to be proper witnesses in the case. The Court did not find their evidence essential and hence rejected the petitions. In the explanation forwarded by the District Magistrate another reason is added to support the Magistrate's action; The District Magistrate states:

(2.) IT is not stated here whether the applicants had knowledge of the persons whom these Police Officers examined during their investigation. It cannot generally be stated that officers, who take part in the investigation are not proper and necessary witnesses. It is possible that the evidence of these might be beneficial to the accused for they might, for example, say that such a story, as is now put forward by the prosecution witnesses, was never told them while they were investigating. It might perhaps be objected that such evidence has inferential reference to statements made by witnesses to them and is therefore inadmissible. Any such interpretation of Section 162, Criminal P.C., would mean going beyond the intention of the section and would render it practically impossible to do justice: vide Tota Meah v. Emperor A.I.R. 1929 Cal. 298. The other action of the Magistrate which is challenged before me is his refusal to grant copies of statements of certain persons examined during the investigation. This action is sought to be justified by the District Magistrate in his explanation which runs as follows: The order of the learned Magistrate was unfortunately unhappily worded. What was meant was that copies of the statements of the prosecution witnesses would be granted provided the Court found on examining the witnesses and referring to the statements in the diary that there was some variance which made it essential in the interest of the accused and justice that copies of those statements should be granted to the accused in order that he might exercise the right which the law gives to use them to contradict the witnesses.

(3.) THE District Magistrate is also wrong when he remarks that, unless the Court first records the depositions of the witnesses, copies of statements made to the police cannot be supplied. Proviso 1, Section 162 is clear on the point and runs as follows: Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such enquiry or trial, the Court shall, on the request of the accused, refer to such writing and direct that accused be furnished with a copy thereof.