KHATRI & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 10-03-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

KHATRI & ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
'March 10, 1981 
[P.N. BHAGWATI AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.] 
145 
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32-Production by the State of certain 
documents called for by the Supreme Court, whether barred by sections 162 to 172 
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, when the State does not claim privilege in 
regard to them under section 123 or section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act-Scope 
of writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution-Section 162 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code, object and scope, explained-Whether investigation ordered by the 
State Government under section 3 of the Indian Police Act, 186! is an investigation 
under Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the reports submitted 
pursuant thereto,form part of "case diary" within the meaning of section 172 of 
Criminal Procedure Code. 
The petitioners are certain undertrials in the State of Bihar. In the Writ Peti-
tions filed by them under Article 32 of the Constitution they complained that 
after their arrest, whilst under police custody they were blinded by the members 
of the police force, acting not in their private capacity but as police officials and 
their fundamental right to life guarnteed under Article 21 was therefore, violated 
and for this violation the State is liable to pay compensation to them. On an 
application made by the petitioners, several documents including C.I.D. Reports 
submitted by Shri L.V. Singh, D.I.G., C.l.D, (Anti Dacoity) on December 9, 1980 
and other dates were called for by the Court. The State raised an objection to the 
production of these documents on the ground that they are protected from 
disclosure under sections 162 to 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and 
that the petitioners are not entitled to see them or to make any use of them in 
the present proceedings. 
Overruling the State objection and directing the Registry to supply copies 
of these documents produced before the Court, to the petitioner's advocate and 
the advocate appearing as amicus curiae, the Court 
HELD : 1 :I. The reports submitted by Shri L.V. Singh setting forth the 
results of his investigation cannot be shut out from being produced and considered 
in evidence either under section 162 or 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code, even 
if they refer to any statements made before him and his associates during investi-
gation, provided they are otherwise relevant under the provisions of the Indian 
Evidence Act. In a writ petition against the State Government where the com-
plaint is that the police officials of the State Government blinded the petitioners 
at the time of arrest or whilst in custody, the State Government cannot resist 
production of a report in regard to the truth or otherwise of the complaint, made 
by a highly placed officer pursuant to the direction issued by the State 
Government. 
(163 B-D] 
I :2. All the other reports covered by Items 2 to 5 of the Court's order 
dated 16th February, 1981 are equally relevant and must, therefore, be produced 
and taken on record in the writ petition. (164 B-C] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1981] 3 S.C.R. 
2:1. The procedure to be followed in a writ petition under Article 32 of 
the Constitution is prescribed under order XXXV of the Supreme Court Rules, 
1966, and sub-rule (9) of Rule 10 lays down that at the hearing of the rule nisi 
if the court is of the opinion that an opportunity be given to the parties to 
establish their respective cases by leading further evidence, the court may take 
such evidence or cause such evidence to be taken in such manner as it may 
deem fit and proper and obviously the reception of such evidence will be govern-
ed by the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. It is obvious, therefore, that 
even a statement made before a police officer during investigation can be produced 
and used in evidence in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution pro-
vided it is relevant under the Indian Evidence Act and neither section 162 nor 
section 172 can be urged as a bar against its production or use. 
[ 153 C-E] 
3:1. When the Court trying the writ petition proceeds to inquire into the 
issue whether the petitioners were blinded by police officials at the time of arrest 
or whilst in police custody, it does so, not for the purpose of adjudicating upon 
the guilt of any particular officer with a view to punishing him but for the purpose 
of de

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.