1977 (3) TMI 177 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether an officer conducting an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act is obligated to provide copies of witness statements to the accused.
2. If not obligated, can the accused still request copies to show contradictions in witness statements during trial.
3. How should the trial court ensure a fair trial for the accused if copies of witness statements are not provided.
4. Can an accused who did not request copies at trial complain of prejudice during the appeal due to non-supply of such copies.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The Supreme Court has clarified that an officer conducting an inquiry under the Act does not possess all the attributes of a police officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the prosecution is not obliged to supply copies of witness statements to the accused, as required by Section 173(4) of the old Code.

Issue 2: The accused may not have the right to receive copies of witness statements recorded by an officer of the Force, as the Act and the Indian Evidence Act do not explicitly provide for such a right. The accused's ability to contradict witness statements during trial may be limited without access to these statements.

Issue 3: The trial court should ensure a fair trial for the accused by allowing the accused to challenge witness credibility through cross-examination and by directing the prosecutor to provide copies of relevant statements if inconsistencies are identified, in accordance with Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Issue 4: An accused who did not request copies of witness statements during trial may find it challenging to complain of prejudice during the appeal due to the lack of such copies. However, the court retains the power to ensure a just decision by examining relevant evidence under the Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure.