Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Crl. Appeal Nos. 217 & 218 of 1955

Judges

Chandra Reddi, J.

Acts

Section 4(1)(a) and Section 4(1)(g) of the Madras Prohibition Act, (10 of 1937)
Prohibition Act and therefore Section 510, Criminal Procedure Code,
SECTION 56 ANDHRA STATE ACT 1953
Section 4(1)(1) and Section 4(1)(m) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Section 4(1)(a) and Section 4(1)(g) of the Madras Prohibition Act.
Section 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Section 510 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Section 4(1)(g) of the Prohibition Act.
Section 510, Criminal Procedure Code.
SECTION 162 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
SECTION 103 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
Section 53 of the Prohibition Act
Section 211, Indian Penal Code
Section 510, Criminal P. C.
Section 4(1)(a)
Section 4(1)(g)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — Chandra Reddi, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeals arise from convictions of two accused under Section 4(1)(a) and Section 4(1)(g) of the Madras Prohibition Act (10 of 1937). The charge was that on 25 October 1954 each accused was found in possession of liquor and of a substance which chemical analysis showed to be fermented wash. The trial Magistrate convicted both accused and sentenced them to two months and four months' rigorous imprisonment respectively.

On appeal, the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate of Bandar confirmed convictions under Section 4(1)(a) but acquitted both accused under Section 4(1)(g). The appellate court's acquittal under Section 4(1)(g) rested on the view that the Chemical Examiner's report—relied upon by the prosecution to prove that the recovered material was fermented wash—was not evidence because the Chemical Examiner was not examined in court to prove the report.

The Public Prosecutor preferred the present appeals challenging the appellate court's view on admissibility of the Chemical Examiner's report under Section 510 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused's counsel advanced alternate arguments supporting the acquittal, including reliance on Section 162 CrPC and alleged procedural defects in the search and seizure (Section 103 CrPC).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Chemical Examiner's report in the record was a report "under the hand of any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government" within the meaning of Section 510, Criminal Procedure Code.
Whether a Chemical Examiner's report received prior to the initiation of prosecution is admissible in evidence under Section 510 CrPC, or whether Section 510 is confined only to reports received during a judicial proceeding.
Whether Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code (prohibition on using statements made to police in the course of investigation) bars admission of the Chemical Examiner's report.
Whether the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code apply to trials under the Prohibition Act so as to attract Section 510 (including the effect of Section 53 and Section 34 of the Prohibition Act).
Whether the search and seizure procedures complied with Section 103 CrPC (respectable inhabitants of the locality attending to witness the search), and if failure to comply should affect the conviction.

Arguments of the Parties

Public Prosecutor (Mr. Bhimaraju)

Contended that the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate erred in holding the Chemical Examiner's report inadmissible.
Argued that the report was covered by Section 510 CrPC despite the signatory not describing himself in the exact terms argued by the lower court, and despite the report being signed also by the Chemical Analyst.
Maintained that the report need not have been received during a judicial proceeding to be admissible under Section 510.

Accused / Respondent (Mr. Satyanarayana)

Supported the appellate court's reasoning that the Chemical Examiner's report was inadmissible because the examiner was not examined in court to prove the report.
Argued that Section 162 CrPC bars reception of the report (on the basis that the report amounted to a statement to police in the course of investigation).
Contended that the Prohibition Act is self-contained and that provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (including Section 510) do not apply to prosecutions under the Prohibition Act.
Argued that requirements of Section 103 CrPC were not complied with: two panchayatdars who attested the seizure lists were not persons of the locality and their evidence suggested no search took place in their presence, undermining the seizure formalities.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Chauth Mull v. Emperor, AIR 1919 Pat 139	Relied upon by the trial court (single Judge of Patna High Court) for the proposition that a Chemical Examiner's report received prior to initiation of prosecution could not be received in evidence.	The present court disagreed with the reasoning in Chauth Mull and held that Section 510 CrPC is not confined to reports received during judicial proceedings—reports received before initiation of prosecution fall within Section 510 and are admissible.
Emperor v. Johri, AIR 1931 All 269	Considered whether a report given by a person to a police officer could fall within the ambit of expressions like "any criminal proceeding" (in that case Section 211 IPC); relied on definitions in Section 4(1) CrPC.	The court treated this authority as consonant with its view that "proceeding under the Code" is broader than "judicial proceeding" and that reports made in the course of pre‑court proceedings can be relevant to later judicial proceedings; it supported admission of the Chemical Examiner's report under Section 510.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded by addressing the admissibility and provenance of the Chemical Examiner's report and related procedural objections. The reasoning unfolded in distinct steps:

Identification of the signatory's status: The court noted a Government Order (G.O. Ms. No. 60, Revenue, 10th January, 1955, Andhra Gazette) by which the Governor of Andhra directed that the First Assistant, Laboratory of the Board of Revenue, Madras State, be competent to exercise functions under Section 56 of the Andhra State Act and thereby be the Assistant Chemical Examiner to the Government of Andhra for purposes of Section 510 CrPC. On that basis the court concluded that the report was submitted by an Assistant Chemical Examiner to the Government of Andhra.
Rejection of formalistic objections to the report: The lower court's reasons—that the Assistant Chemical Examiner did not sign with an explicit description as Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government of Andhra, and that the document was also signed by the Chemical Analyst—were found to be without force. The court held that the presence of the Board Analyst's signature did not detract from the document's legal character and that the circumstances (report sent to Government of Andhra and the Assistant's appointment) made it reasonable to infer the report was made in the officer's capacity as Assistant Chemical Examiner to the Government of Andhra.
Interpretation of Section 510 CrPC: The court analysed the wording of Section 510—"Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code."—and rejected a narrow construction equating "proceeding under this Code" with a "judicial proceeding" only. The court compared definitions in Section 4(1) CrPC (specifically "investigation" and "judicial proceedings") and concluded "proceeding under the Code" covers a broader range of proceedings, including pre‑court proceedings such as investigations.
Admissibility of reports received prior to initiation of prosecution: Applying the broader meaning, the court held that a Chemical Examiner's report received prior to the initiation of prosecution falls within Section 510 and is admissible in subsequent judicial proceedings. The court specifically overruled the contrary view in the single‑judge Patna decision (Chauth Mull).
Discretion to use report and examining the examiner: The court observed that Section 510 uses permissive language ("may be used as evidence"), so a court is not bound in every case to admit the report without calling the reporter; there may be occasions when the court deems it necessary to examine the Chemical Examiner. In the instant case, there was no suggestion that the accused sought to have the Chemical Examiner examined.
Rejection of Section 162 bar: The court rejected the argument that Section 162 CrPC (which bars using statements made to police in the course of investigation) precludes admission of Chemical Examiner's reports. The court reasoned that Section 162 is directed at statements made by persons to police officers during investigation; Chemical Examiner's reports are not "statements to police officers" and therefore Section 162 is not relevant to their admissibility under Section 510.
Applicability of the Criminal Procedure Code to Prohibition Act prosecutions: The court rejected the submission that the Prohibition Act is self-contained and excludes CrPC. It relied on Section 53 of the Prohibition Act (which preserves operation of the CrPC) and Section 34 (which prescribes that searches under the Prohibition Act shall be conducted in accordance with the CrPC). Consequently, Section 510 CrPC applies to prosecutions under the Prohibition Act.
Procedural defects in search and seizure: Although the court found the Chemical Examiner's report admissible and material, it noted procedural irregularities in search and seizure. The court accepted that the investigating officer failed to show due compliance with Section 103 CrPC: two panchayatdars who attested the seizure lists were not persons of the locality, had been brought from Masulipatam, and later deposed for the defence that they did not witness a search and were merely asked to sign. The investigating officer had not stated that he attempted and failed to secure local respectable inhabitants. These facts raised doubts about the validity of the seizure formalities in this case.
Appellate Court's failure to examine evidence: The court also noted that the lower appellate court had not properly considered the defence evidence and had not discussed the prosecution evidence satisfactorily. Given those deficiencies, the present court declined to remand the matter or rehear the entire evidence afresh, since the Public Prosecutor sought resolution of law questions rather than a retrial on facts.

Holding and Implications

Final Ruling: The appeals are dismissed and the order of acquittal by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate is maintained.

The court's principal legal holdings, as they affect the issues raised in these appeals, were:

The Chemical Examiner's report (Exhibit P‑2) was properly characterized as a report by an Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government within the meaning of Section 510, Criminal Procedure Code, because of the Government Order establishing the officer's competence in that capacity.
Section 510 CrPC covers reports prepared "in the course of any proceeding under this Code" in a broad sense; reports received prior to initiation of prosecution are admissible in subsequent inquiries or trials under Section 510. The court rejected a narrower construction limiting Section 510 to reports received only during judicial proceedings.
Section 162 CrPC does not bar admission of Chemical Examiner's reports because Section 162 relates to statements made to police officers in the course of investigation, whereas Chemical Examiner's reports are not such statements.
Prosecutions under the Prohibition Act are subject to relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (relying on Section 53 of the Prohibition Act and the search provisions in Section 34), so Section 510 can apply in prosecutions under that Act.

Direct effect on the parties: Despite the Court's favorable rulings on the admissibility of the Chemical Examiner's report and the non‑applicability of Section 162 to such reports, the acquittal was maintained because (a) the appellate court had not properly considered the defence and prosecution evidence, and (b) there were material procedural defects in the search and seizure (non‑compliance with Section 103 CrPC) that undermined the prosecution's case. The appeals were therefore dismissed and the accused remain acquitted of the Section 4(1)(g) charge.

The opinion does not set out a separate statement as to whether it establishes a novel, binding precedent beyond its application to the present facts; it decides the legal questions raised and applies them to the instant record, while expressing disagreement with a prior single‑judge Patna decision on the admissibility point.

Show full summary ...

The Public Prosecutor v. Pamarti Venkata Chalamaiah (Accused).

JUDGMENT Chandra Reddi, J.

1. The point involved in both these appeals is the same. It relates to the interpretation of Section 510, Criminal P. C. Both the accused who are the respondents in these two appeals were convicted under Section 4(1)(a) and Section 4(1)(g) of the Madras Prohibition Act, (10 of 1937) and sentenced to two months and four months rigorous imprisonment respectively by the trial Magistrate. The case against each of the accused was that on the 25th of October, 1954, they were found in possession of liquor and also some substance which on chemical analysis was found to be fermented wash and were therefore charged under Section 4(1)(a) and Section 4(1)(g) of the Madras Prohibition Act. The trial Court found both the accused guilty as charged and sentenced them as mentioned above. On appeal, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bandar while confirming the conviction of each of the accused under Section 4(1)(a) acquitted both of them under Section 4(1)(g) on the ground that the report of the Chemical Examiner which was relied on for the prosecution to prove that the material recovered from the accused was fermented, was not evidence for the reason that he was not examined in Court to prove the report.

2. The Public Prosecutor has preferred these two appeals against the acquittal of each of the accused impugning the view of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as regards the admissibility of the Chemical Examiner's report. In support of these appeals, it is urged by Mr. Bhimaraju for the Public Prosecutor that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate erred in thinking that the report of the Chemical Examiner was inadmissible for the reasons that the report was not that of a Chemical Examiner to the Government of Andhra and that even other-wise it could not fall within the operation of Section 510, Criminal Procedure Code.

3. On the other hand, Mr, Satyanarayana, besides trying to sustain the judgment on the reasons mentioned by the appellate Court, propound. ed also another proposition that such a report is hit at by Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code and consequently inadmissible in evidence.

4. The first question, therefore, to be considered is whether the report submitted was by the Chemical Examiner to the Government of Andhra to come within the purview of Section 510 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This depends on whether the signatory to this document was appointed by the Government of Andhra to fulfil the functions of a Chemical Examiner. That this was done appears from the G. O. published in the Andhra Gazette of January 26th, 1955, Part I, page 98. The relevant notification is as follows:

Competent Authority to exercise functions under Section 56, Andhra State Act, 1953.

(G. O. Ms. No 60, Revenue, 10th January, 1955), In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 56 of the Andhra State Act, 1953, (Central Act XXX of 1953), the Governor of Andhra hereby directs that the authority, officer or person specilled in column (2) of the schedule below, shall be competent to exercise the functions exercisable under the law mentioned in, the corresponding entry in column (1) of the said schedule in the Andhra State also:

It is thus manifest that by this order the Government of Andhra had appointed the First Assistant, Laboratory of the Board of Revenue, Madras State, as the Assistant Chemical Examiner to the Government of Andhra for the purpose of Section 510, Criminal Procedure Code. Indisputably the Assistant Chemical Examiner is included in Section 510, Criminal Procedure Code, The lower Court thought that Exhibit P-2 the report in question could not be treated as one by the Assistant Chemical Examiner to the Government of Andhra for two reasons : (1) that he did not sign as Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government of Andhra; and (2) that it was also signed by the Chemical Analyst. The contention put forward by Satyanarayana before me is on the same lines. I must observe that there is no force in this reasoning. The mere fact that the Analyst, Board's Laboratory, had appended his signature to the document does not detract from the value or the legality of it. As regards the first ground, it is true that the Assistant Chemical Examiner did not describe himself as the Officer to Government of Andhra for Excise and Prohibition. But, it cannot be overlooked that this was sent to Government of Andhra and secondly he was an Assistant Chemical Examiner only to the Government of Andhra because so far as the Government of Madras is concerned, he was only the First Assistant of the Laboratory of the Board of Revenue. It is therefore futile to contend that Exhibit P-2 should be ignored as the report of an Assistant Chemical Examiner to the concerned Government. In the circumstances of the case, the only reasonable inference that could be drawn is that it was in his capacity as Assistant Chemical Examiner to the Government of Andhra he submitted, the report. That contention is therefore overruled.

5. Another ground of decision was that since the report was received prior to the initiation of prosecution, it could not be received in evidence and in the absence of any such report there was no material to establish that the substance recovered from the secured was fermented wash to sustain a conviction under Section 4(1)(g) of the Prohibition Act. This view of the trial Court was based on a judgment of a single Judge of Patna High Court in Chauth Mull v. Emperor AIR 1919 Pat 139(2)(A). It is useful to refer to the terms of Section 510, Criminal Procedure Code:

Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.

Mr. Satyanarayana who has adopted the reasoning of the trial Court argues that the words "any proceeding under this Code" are synonymous with a judicial proceeding and therefore Section 510 should be limited only to a case where the report was received pending proceedings in a. Court. In my opinion, this is giving too restricted meaning to it and the import of this language is much wider than that attributed to it. It cannot, be overlooked that the next sentence is "may be used in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code". In this context, the definition of "investigation" in Section 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code throws much light:

Investigation includes all the proceedings, under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf.

Clause (m) contains the definition of 'judicial proceedings'. A comparison of these two definitions makes it abundantly clear that the expression "proceeding under the Code" is not tantamount to a judicial proceeding. Thus, the words "in the course of any proceeding under this Code" in the earlier part of the section cannot bear the connotation attributed, to it. They include all the proceedings under the Code and are not confined to a proceeding initiating prosecution. Otherwise there is no question of the report being used as evidence in any enquiry or trial in a Court; that could arise only if it precedes a proceeding in a Court. In my opinion, a Chemical Examiner's report received prior to the initation of prosecution is admissible evident in any proceedings in a Court as it comes within the operation of Section 510, Criminal Procedure Code. With great respect to the learned Judge, I am unable to share the view of Jwala Prasad, J., in AIR 1919 Pat 139(2)(A). If the interpretation sought to be placed upon it is accepted, Section 510 will be rendered otiose. It cannot be overlooked that in several cases the receipt of the Chemical Examiner's report is necessary to decide whether prosecution should be launched against an individual or not. The report being an essential factor in determining whether prosecution should be launched or not, it could not be contended that this report of the Chemical Examiner received after the initiation of the prosecution is alone admissible in evidence.

6. It is true that Section 510 says that the report may be used as evidence which means that it is not obligatory upon a Court to use it as evidence in every case. May be that in some cases the Court might feel the necessity to examine the Chemical Examiner. (The amended Code contains a specific provision in this regard to summon and examine any person as to the subject-matter of his report). There is no suggestion in this case that the accused wanted that the Chemical Examiner should be examined in the case.

7. I may here refer to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Emperor v. Johri AIR 1931 All 269(B), which is in consonance with the view taken by me. The question that arose there was whether a report given by a person to a police officer which was ultimately found to be false would come within the ambit of the expression "any criminal proceeding" in Section 211, Indian Penal Code and this was answered in the affirmative. In coming to that conclusion the learned Judge also referred to the definitions under Section 4(1)(1) and Section 4(1)(m) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It follows that the report of the Chemical Examiner marked as Exhibit P-2 was properly admitted in evidence and the lower appellate Court had committed an error in discarding it as having no evidentiary value and acquitting the accused on that ground.

8. Mr. Satyanarayana maintained that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code do not apply to a proceeding under the Prohibition Act and therefore Section 510, Criminal Procedure Code, is not attracted. According to him, the Prohibition Act is a self-contained Code and therefore there is no warrant for importing the provisions of section 510 into the trial of prohibition offences, Here again, I cannot give effect to this argument. Section 53 of the Prohibition Act specifically recites that "nothing contained in this shall affect the operation of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898", That apart, there is a specific provision for applying the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code to searches under the Prohibition Act and that is Section 34 which provides that all searches under the provisions shall be made in accordance with the previsions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. There can be little doubt that even a trial under the Prohibition Act is governed by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is therefore no force in this contention also.

9. It was strenuously argued by Mr. Satyanarayana that 8. 162, Criminal Procedure Code was a bar to the reception of this document in evidence, but he could not place any authority in support of this proposition. I do not think Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, prohibits the Chemical Examiner's report being admitted in evidence. The inhibition contained in Section 162 is only against statements made by any person to a police officer in the course of investigation. It does not 1 impinge upon the reports of Chemical Examiner as they do not amount to statements to police officers in the course of investigation. I do not think Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, is relevant in considering the admissibility of the Chemical Examiner's report. If the contention of Mr, Satyanarayana is to be accepted, Section 510 of the Criminal Procedure Code becomes nugatory and in spite of its remaining on the statute bock no use could be made by the prosecution. That submission is therefore not entitled to much weight and has to be negatived. For these reasons, I must hold, the lower Court was not justified in discarding the evidence furnished by Exhibit P-2.

10. For these reasons, the appeals would have been allowed. But the lower appellate Court has not considered the defence evidence let in by the two accused in the case. Even the prosecution evidence does not seem to have been discussed satisfactorily by the lower appellate Court. In the circumstances of the case, I do not think I will be justified either in remanding it or in considering the whole evidence afresh here. After all, the Public Prosecutor is only interested in getting questions of law decided.

11. There is also some force in the contention of Mr. Satyanarayana that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code with regard to searches have been violated. It is argued by the learned Counsel that two of the panchayatdars who have attested the seizure lists were not persons of the locality but were brought from Masulipatam. It is absolutely essential that the officers conducting investigation bear in mind the previsions of Section 103, Criminal Procedure Code. This section contemplates that before a search is made the officer concerned will call upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate, to attend and witness the search. It does not mean that the Investigating Officers can have two or three people accompanying them everywhere they go for searches. As far as possible, the provisions of the section should be complied with. There may be cases where it may not be possible to get two respectable persons of the locality to attend and witness the search. But, in this case, the Investigating Officer does not say that he made an effort to bring two respectable persons of the locality. In fact even before they started for the village they brought these two persons. The officer does not say that in the particular village it is not possible to get respectable persons to witness the search. It is also interesting that these two persons figured as defence witnesses and deposed that by the time they went there all the material was heaped up and there was no search in their presence and they were merely asked to sign, though the panchayatnama which they attested contained recitals contrary to what they deposed.

12. In these circumstances, though altogether for different reasons, the order of acquittal is maintained and the appeals dismissed.

The Public Prosecutor v. Pamarti Venkata Chalamaiah (Accused).

Judgment Summary — Chandra Reddi, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Public Prosecutor (Mr. Bhimaraju)

Accused / Respondent (Mr. Satyanarayana)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

The Public Prosecutor v. Pamarti Venkata Chalamaiah (Accused).

Comments