The question in this revision is whether a District Superintendent of Police can plead privilege under S. 124 of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of statements made by the witnesses in an investigation made by his subordinates. The accused is a Sub Inspector of Police. A complaint was made against him to the District Superintendent of Police and on the complaint he directed the circle Inspector of Police to make an investigation. During the course of the investigation statements were recorded from various persons. On enquiry the police did not take any action. Then a private complaint was filed in the court of the Sub Magistrate, Vizianagaram. The accused filed an application for calling for the statement recorded by the Inspector for the purpose of contradicting the witnesses. The District Superintendent of Police in his letter dated 6-3-1950 (R.C 6810.R 3/99) claimed privilege in respect of those statements. The Stationary Sub Magistrate, Vizianagaram accepted his plea and held that the statements could not be given to the accused for the purpose of contradiction. A revision petition was filed to the District Magistrate of Visakhapatnam against that order who held that those statements were made in the course of a public enquiry by the police and the District Superintendent could not plead privilege in respect of these statements. Put in view of the remarks made by Govinda Menon J. in The King v. Kotrappa [1948] M.W.N 569 he thought that that was not a fit case for submission to the High Court and therefore he dismissed the revision. After the revision was dismissed the sub magistrate refused the request of the accused on the ground that hisprevious order had become final inasmuch as the revision was dismissed by the District Magistrate. The present revision is filed by the accused against that order.
S. 124 of the Indian Evidence Act runs thus:
“No public Officer shall be compelled to disclose communication made to him in Official confidence, when he considers that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure.”
This section can therefore be applied only when the communication was made to a public officer in official confidence. The statements made by the witnesses in a investigation made by the circle inspector under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be considered to be statements made in official confidence. The accused is certainly entitled to use those statements to contradict the prosecution witnesses.
The order of the lower court is therefore set aside.
N.T.ROrder set aside