Find a Lawyer

.

Petition for revision No. 930 of 954 decided on 2nd November., 1954 under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code of the order of Syed Muhammad Abdul Latif Shah, Sessions Judge, Shahpur at Sargodha, dated the 6th September, 1954, affirming that of Rana Aftab Ahmad, Magistrate First Class, Sargodha dated the 24th July, 1954.,

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),

Ss. 161 and 162 Record of joint statement of several persons‑Copy may not be refused.

The investigating officer recorded a statement jointly of five persons. The accused asked for a copy of statement of one of those persons when he was under cross‑examination. Copy was refused on ground that the statement was a joint one with four other persons.

Held, there is no reason why the accused should be deprived of the benefit that he may derive from confronting the witness with his previous statement simply because other witnesses have made a similar statement. It may be possible for the prosecution to argue, in the circumstances of a particular case, that in the consolidated statement the statement of one person may have been attributed to another. That is a matter to be decided in accordance with the facts of each case and would not affect the admissibility of the statement.

Abdul Ghani Musalli v. The Crown P L D 1954 Dacca 15 mentioned.

Zafar Ali, for Petitioner.

Bibi Surayya Begum for the Advocate‑General, for Respondent.

B. Z. KAIKAUS, J.

‑This is an application in revision against the order of the learned Additional District Magis trate, Sargodha, who has refused the application of the accused in a case under section 302 P. P. C. for a copy of the state ment of Amir Ali P. W.

The case against the petitioner is that while he was posted as Sub‑Inspector of the C. I. A. at Sargodha he was respon sible for causing the death of Ahmad, a suspect. One Amir Ali, who was a Muharrir attached .to the C. I. A. police post, at Sargodha, has appeared as a witness in the case against him and has stated that on the night when Ahmad deceased is said to have .been killed he was awakened at midnight by some constable. He found that Ahmad was lying dead and the dead body was subsequently removed by some constables. While the witness was under cross- examination, the petitioner's counsel wanted to confront him with a statement already made by him to the effect that no suspect had been brought to the C. 1. A. Police Post on the night in question. A copy of this statement was refused by the learned Additional District Magistrate on the ground that the statement in the Zimnis was a joint statement of a number of persons and that of such a statement no copy should be given. The learned Additional District Magistrate relied for this proposition on Banta Singh v. Emperor (A I R 1930 Lah.457) and Emperor v. Karimuddi Sheikh (A I R 1932 Cal. 375). In the first‑mentioned case it was held that if the statement is a joint one, the Court may refuse a copy. In the second case the first case was relied on and it was held that if by a joint statement is meant an abstract of a consolidated statement of different persons, a copy should be refused.

It is not necessary for me to go into the correctness of the view expressed in these two judgments because there is an amendment of the Cr. P. C. in 1945 by which to section 161 was added the following subsection :‑

"(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section, and if he does so he shall make a separate record of the statement, of each such person whose statement he records."

It is clear from the subsection quoted above that it is the duty of the police officer to record separate statements of all persons. I agree with the observations of the learned judges in Abdul Ghani Musalli v. The Crawn (P L D 1954 Dacca 15) that the accused cannot be prejudiced by the failure of the Sub- Inspector to carry out the mandatory provisions of the Cr. P. C. I have seen the statement in this case and there is no doubt that the statement is a. joint one of five persons, but I do not see any reason why the accused should be deprived of the benefit that he may derive from confronting the witness with his previous statement simply because other witnesses have made similar statement. It may be possible for the prosecution to argue, in the circum stances of a particular case, that in the consolidated statement the statement of one person may have been attributed to another. That is a matter to be decided in accordance with the facts of each case and would not effect the admissibility of the statement. .I accept this revision petition and direct that the accused be furnished with a copy of the statement in dispute.

A. H. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.