1974 (8) TMI 109 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.
2. Whether the inquiry under section 8(1) of the Act is an investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
3. Admissibility of statements recorded during the inquiry.
4. Validity of the trial if witnesses' signatures are obtained on statements during the inquiry.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966:
The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, particularly section 8(1), which mandates an inquiry by an officer of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) when a person is arrested for an offence under the Act. The court examined whether this inquiry could be equated with an "investigation" under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC).

2. Whether the inquiry under section 8(1) of the Act is an investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898:
The court scrutinized the provisions of the Act and the CrPC to determine if the inquiry under section 8(1) of the Act is an investigation as per the CrPC. It was noted that section 8(2) of the Act allows an RPF officer to exercise the same powers as an officer in charge of a police station during an investigation of a cognizable case. However, the court emphasized that the Act's provisions are distinct and cannot be entirely superimposed on the CrPC. The Act's scheme and certain provisions, such as section 6 (arrest without a warrant) and section 14 (Act's provisions prevailing over other laws), indicate that inquiries under the Act are not the same as investigations under the CrPC.

3. Admissibility of statements recorded during the inquiry:
The court addressed whether statements recorded during the inquiry under section 8(1) are admissible in evidence. It was argued that section 162 of the CrPC, which prohibits the use of statements made to a police officer during an investigation, should apply. However, the court clarified that section 8(2) of the Act, which allows the RPF officer to exercise certain powers for the purpose of the inquiry, does not make the inquiry an investigation under the CrPC. Consequently, statements made during the inquiry are not subject to the restrictions of section 162 of the CrPC. The court also noted that section 9(3) of the Act obligates persons to state the truth during the inquiry, and section 9(4) deems such inquiries as judicial proceedings, thereby justifying the obtaining of signatures on statements.

4. Validity of the trial if witnesses' signatures are obtained on statements during the inquiry:
The court examined whether obtaining witnesses' signatures on statements during the inquiry vitiated the entire trial. The High Court had set aside the trial on this basis, applying section 162 of the CrPC. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the inquiry under the Act is distinct from an investigation under the CrPC, and the prohibition in section 162 does not apply. The court emphasized that the trial could not be vitiated solely based on this procedural aspect, especially when there was substantial evidence presented during the trial.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, which had acquitted the respondent, and restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur. The court concluded that the respondent was in possession of railway property, thereby committing an offence under section 3(a) of the Act. The appeal was allowed, reaffirming the validity of the trial and the admissibility of the evidence presented.