STATE OF U.P. versus DURGA PRASAD

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 881 · Decided: 23-08-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
A 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
DURGA PRASAD 
August 23, 1974 
(H. R. KHANNA ANDY. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.j 
881 
B 
Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966-WheJher enquiry under 
section 8(1) of the Act is an investigation within the nieaning of Criminal Pro. 
cedure Code-Whether statements recorded during the course of enquiry would 
be inad1nissible in evidence by reason of section 162 of the Criminal Procedure 
Code-Wh~ther entire trial is vitiated if Signatures of witnesses are obtained on 
the state1nents made by them during the enquiry. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The respondent was working as a turner in the Railway workshop. He was 
found in possession of properties belonging to the Railways. The Sub-Inspector 
of Railway Protection Force enquired into the case under section 8(1) of the 
Act. 
During the course of enquiry he recorded statements of 3 persons. 
Tho 
staten1ents were signed by those persons. 
The Special Railway Magistrate con-
victed the respondent under section 3 (9) of the Act. 
On appeal, the learned 
Civil and Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction. 
On a revision application 
filed, the High Court set aside the judgment of the Sessions Court and acquitted 
the respondent on the ground that the enquiry contemplated by Section 8( 1) 
of the Act is an investigation for the purposes of the Criminal ProCedure Code; 
that th:: enquiry officer contravened provisions of section J 62 of the Code by 
obtainiOg signatures of witnesses on the statements made by them during the 
enquiry and that since those statements were brought on the record of the trial 
and were put to the witnesses in their examination-in-chief th~ entire trial \\'as 
vitiated. 
/dlowing the appeal. 
HELD : The enquiry conducted under section 8 ( 1) of the Act cannot be 
deemzd to he an investigation for the purposes of section 162 of the Crin1inal 
Procedure Code. The exclusion of an important provision of the Criminal Pro-
cedure Code in matters arising under the Act is reflected in section 5 and section. 
14 of the Act. 
Under section 14, the provisions of the Act take effect notwith-
standing anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time 
being in force. 
The Act would prevail over the code if on any matter there is 
inconsistency between the two. 
Section 5 (2) of the Code itself lays down that 
offences under any law other than the Penal Code shall be investigated accord-
ing to the provisions of the Code but subject to any enactments for the .time 
being in force regulating the manner of investigating such offences. 
Under sec-
tion 9 (3) of the Act persons summoned to appear in the enquiry are under an 
express obligation to state the truth whereas section 160 of the Code does not 
cast on such persons the obligation to state th~ truth. 
Tb~ importance of the 
obligation cast by section 9(3) of the Act is that the breach of that ob~igation 
constitutes an offence under section 193 of the Penal Code. 
The obligation to 
state the truth which attracts for its breach a penal consequence. must necessarily 
imply in the officer conducting the enquiry the power to obtain the signature 
of the person on lfie statement made by him. 
Th~ right and duty of a'l investi-
gating officer to d\Ie a Police Report or a Charge Sheet on the conclusion of 
investigation is the hallmark of an investigation under th~ Code. 
The Officer 
conducting an enquiry under section 8(1) of the Act does not possess all attri-
butes of an officer in charge of a Police Station investigating a case under the 
Code. [884 D; G-H; 886 A-B; 887 El 
HELD Further : Apart from the staten1ents made by witnesses during the 
enquiry which were brought on ·the record cf the ca~e by the learned Magistrate 
H 
there was evidence of the witnesses who were examined in the Court and the 
entire trial could in no case be said to have been vitiated. 
At best, the High 
Court should have excluded from consideration what it thought was inad1nissible 
IO-Ml92SupC[(75 ' 
• 
88 2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] l s.c.R. 
in evidence. The evidence clearly shows that the respondent was in possession 
A 
of railway property and had thereby committed an offence under section 3(a) 
of the Act. The judgment of the High Court was set aside and that of the 
Civil & Sessions Judge restored. [889 C-D] 
State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, [1962] 3 S.C.R. 338, Pradhan Jyoti Sawant 
State of Mysore, [1966] 3 S.C.R. 698, followed. 
Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bi/Jar, [1964] 2 S.C.R. 7

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