Section 172 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 172 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

 

Section 172 of the crpc, 1973 :- Diary of proceedings in investigation –

 

(1) Every police officer making an investigation under this Chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary, setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.

 

(2) Any Criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such Court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial.

 

(3) Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the Court; but, if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of section 161 or section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872 ), shall apply.

 

CASE LAW AND IT’S ANALYSIS :-

 

Mukund Lal & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 14 October, 1988

 

Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 144, 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 524

Bench: Thakkar, M.P. (J)

 

PETITIONER: MUKUND LAL & ANR.

 

          V/S.

 

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/10/1988

 

BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J)

BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J)

              RAY, B.C. (J)

 

CITATION:

1989 AIR  144                    

1988 SCR  Supl. (3) 524

1989 SCC  Supl.  (1) 622 JT

1988 (4)        143

1988 SCALE  (2)1001

 

 

ACT:

Criminal   Procedure   Code,  1973:         Section   172(3)

Constitutional validity of–Case diary and entries therein–

Only  Court  entitled to call for and  examine–Accused          not

entitled to call for diary.

   

Constitution of India, 1950: Article  32–Constitutional

validity of Section 172(3) Cr. P. C. 1973.

 

 

 

HEADNOTE:

 

Section  172(3)  of the Criminal  Procedure       Code, 1973

provides  that neither the accused nor his agents  shall  be

entitled  to  call  for the case diary, nor  shall  they  be

entitled to see them merely because they are referred to  by

the  Court, but if they are used by the Police     Officers  to

refresh his memory or if the Court uses them for the purpose

of  contradicting  such Police Officer,      the  provisions  of

section 161 or 145 as the case may be of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872 shall apply.

   

The     petitioners challenged the constitutional  validity

of  the aforesaid provision in the High Court but  the   High

Court  repelled        the  same on the ground  that     the  embargo

placed by section 172(3) Cr.P.C. on the right of the accused

or his representative in calling for the diary or seeing any

part  of it is only a partial one and not absolute,  that  a

safeguard  has already been provided in the .Section  itself

to protect the right of the accused. that in the inquiry  or

trial everything which may appear against the accused has to

be  established        and brought before the     Court by  evidence

other  than the diary, and the accused can have the  benefit

of  examining the witnesses and the Court has power to       call

for  the diary and use it. It accordingly held that  Section

172(3) cannot, therefore, be said to be unconstitutional.

   

The     High  Court  having  repulsed     the  challenge,        the

accused        who  were the petitioners in the High     Court  again

approached  this  Court     in writ petitions  under  Art.        32,

reiterating the challenge on the premise that the High Court

had erred in sustaining the validity of the said provision.

   Dismissing the petitions, the Court.

                                                              

    HELD:

 

  1. Section 1-72 embodies a composite scheme. The

duty  cast under clauses (1) and the rider added  by  clause

(3)  thereof  form integral part of the scheme.   Clause         (3)

cannot          be struck down in isolation whilst retaining  clause

(1). The legislature in its wisdom has cast this  obligation

only  subject  to the rider clause (3) cannot be  viewed  in

isolation. [530D-E]

  1. The provision embodied in sub-section (3) of section

172  of the Cr.P.C. cannot be characterised as unreasonable

or arbitrary. [528E-F]

 

  1. Under  sub-section (2) of section  172     Cr.P.C.          the

Court itself has the unfettered power to examine the entries

in  the diaries. This is a very  important  safeguard.  The

Legislature has reposed complete trust in the court which is

conducting  the inquiry of the trial. It has  empowered the

court to call for any such relevant case diary, if there  is

any inconsistency or contradiction arising in the context of

the case diary the Court can use the entries for the purpose

of  contradicting  the Police Officer as  provided  in      sub-

section (3) of section 172 of the Cr.P.C. [528F-G]

 

  1. The public interest requirement from the stand point

of  the need to ensure a fair trial for an accused  is    more

than  sufficiently met by the power conferred on the  court,

which  is the ultimate custodian of the interest of  justice

and can always be trusted to be vigilant to ensure that         the

interest  of  accused persons standing the trial,  is  fully

safeguarded. [529H; 530A]

 

  1. There would be no prejudice or failure of justice to

the  accused person since the court can be trusted  to look

into  the  police diary for the purpose      of  protecting          his

interest.  Therefore. the public interest  requirement    from

the perspective of safeguarding the interest of all  persons

standing trial, is not compromised. [530B]

    Mohinder  Singh  v.       Emperor,  AIR         1932  (Lahore) And Birajman Mandir v. Prem Narain Shukla    & Ors., AIR

1965  (Allahabad)  .

 

 

 

JUDGMENT:

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTlON: Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 49 and 129 of 1987.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India ) .

PG NO 526 Nand Lal, Mrs. Bagga and S.K. Bagga for the Petitioner. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THAKKAR, J. Constitutional validity of a part of a provision enjoining a police officer engaged in an investigation under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been called into question. The provision which so enjoins an investigation officer is embodied in Section 172, Clause (1) whereof imposes the duty. It is a part of this provision namely clause (3) which is the target of the challenge made by one of the two accused in a Criminal case. The High Court having repulsed the challenge, the accused have approached this Court by way of the present petition in order to reiterate the challenge on the premise that the High Court had erred in sustaining the validity of the impugned provision. The analysis of Section 172, Clause (3) whereof has given rise to the challenge to its constitutionally reveals:

(1) That it embodies a complete scheme relating to the matter of maintaining a diary.

(2) Clause (1) imposes the obligation to do so and provides for the contents thereof.

(3) The Court is empowered to call for such diaries to aid it in

(i) Section 172(3)–“Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or the be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the Court: but, if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for the urpose of contradicting such police officer. the provision of Section 161 or 145 as the case may be. of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 shall apply.”

(ii) Section 161--“Any writing referred to under the provisions of the two last preceding sections must be produced and shown to the adverse party if he requires it; such party may, if he pleases, cross-examine the witness thereupon”.

(iii) Section 145--“A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.”

PG NO 527 inquiry or trial subject to the rider that it can not be used as evidence thereat.

(iv) Merely because the Court calls for the diary, the accused (or his agent) can not claim the right to peruse it. (5) The accused can peruse that particular part 2 of the diary in the context of Section 161 of the Indian Evidence Act or Section 145 thereof in case:

(a) if it is used by the police officer concerned to refresh his memory;

or

(b) if the Court uses it for contradicting the police official concerned.

The High Court has repelled the plea by recourse to the reasoning reflected in the relevant passage extracted hereinbelow:

“So far as Section 172(3) iS concerned, the embargo on the right of the accused or his representative in calling for the diary or seeing any part of it is only a partial one and not absolute because if a part of the diary has been used by the police officer to refresh his memory or the court uses it for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of Section 161 and 145 of the Indian Evidence Act,will be applicable. So far as the other parts are concerned, the accused need not necessarily have a right of access to them because in a criminal trial or enquiry, whatever is sought to be proved against the accused, will have to be proved by the evidence other than the diary itself and the diary can only be used for a very limited purpose by the Court or the police officer as stated above. Even then, a safeguard has already been provided in the Section itself to protect the right of the accused. The investigating Officer deposes before the Court on the basis of the entries in the diary. If the accused or his counsel thinks that he is stating something against the diary or is trying to hide something which may be in the diary he can put question in that respect to the Investigating Officer, and if the accused or his counsel has any doubt about the veracity of the statement made by the Investigation Officer, PG NO 528 he may always request the court to look into the diary and verify the facts and, this right of the accused can always be safeguarded. It is true that it is for the court to decide whether the facts stated are borne out by the diary or not, but then this much reliance has always to be placed on the court and it has to be trusted as it is trusted in the case under Section 123 of the Evidence Act in order to decide whether any privilege can be claimed with respect to the documents in question. Even according to the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertaining to Section 123 of the Evidence Act, it is the right of the court to decide whether the privileged document contains any material affecting the public interest or a particular affair of the State, which need not be disclosed.

When in the enquiry or trial, everything which may appear against the accused has to be established and brought before the Court by evidence other than the diary and the accused can have the benefit of cross-examining he witnesses and the court has power to call for the diary and use it, of course not as evidence but in aid of the enquiry or trial, I am clearly of the opinion, that the provisions under Section 172(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be unconstitutional.”

We fully endorse the reasoning of the High Court and concur with its conclusion. We are of the opinion that the provision embodied in sub-section (3) of Section 172 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be characterised as unreasonable or arbitrary. Under sub-section(2) of section 172 Cr.P.C. the Court itself has the unfettered power to examine the entries in the diaries. This is a very important safeguard. The Legislature has reposed complete trust in the court which is conducting the inquiry or the trial. It has empowered the court to call for any such relevant case diary, if there is any inconsistency or contradiction arising in the context of the case dairy the Court can use the entries for the purpose of contradicting the Police Officer as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 172 of the Cr.P.C. Ultimately there can be no better custodian or guardian of the interest of justice than the Court trying the case. No court will deny to itself the power to make use of the entries in the diary to the advantage of the accused by contradicting the police officer with reference to the contents of the diaries. In view of this safeguard, the charge of unreasonableness or arbitrariness cannot stand scrutiny. The PG NO 529 petitioners claim an unfetterred right to make roving inspection of the entries in the case diary regardless of whether these entries are used by the police officer concerned to refresh his memory or regardless of the fact whether the court has used these entries for the purpose of contradicting such police-officer. It cannot be said that unless such unfetterred right is conferred and recognised, the embargo engrafted in sub-section(3) of section 172 of the Cr.P.C. would fail to meet the test of reasonableness. For instance in the case diary there might be a note as regards the identity of the informant who gave some information which resulted in investigation into a particular aspect. Public Interest demands that such an entry is not made available to the accused for it might endanger the safety of the informants and it might deter the informants from giving any information to assist the investigating agency, as observed in Mohinder Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1932 (Lahore) page 103 (104):

“The accused has no right to insist upon a police witness referring to his diary in order to elicit information which is privileged. The contents of the diary are not at the disposal of the defence and cannot be used except strictly in accordance with the provisions of Sections 162 and 172Section 172 shows that witness may refresh his memory by reference to them but such use is at the discretion of the witness and the Judge, whose duty it is to ensure that the privilege attaching to them by statute is strictly enforced.”

and also as observed in Mahabirji Birajman Mandir v Prem Narain Shukla & Ors, A.I.R. 1965 (Allahabad) p. 494.

“The case diary contains not only the statements of witnesses recorded under s. 161 Cr. P.C. and the site plan or other documents prepared by the Investigating Officer, but also reports or observations of the Investigating Officer or his superiors. These reports are of a confidential nature and privilege can he claimed thereof. Further, the disclosure of the contents of such reports cannot help any of the parties to the litigation . as the report invariably contains the opinion of such officers and their opinion is inadmissible in evidence.”

The public interest requirement from the stand point of the need to ensure a fair trial for an accused is more than sufficiently met by the power conferred on the court, which is the ultimate custodian of the interest of justice and can PG NO 530 always be trusted to be vigilant to ensure that the interest of accused persons standing the trial, is fully safeguarded. This is a factor which must be accorded its due weight. There would be no prejudice or failure of justice to the accused person since the court can be trusted to look into the police diary for the purpose of protecting his interest. Therefore, the public interest requirement from the perspective of safeguarding the interest of all persons standing trial, is not compromised. On the other hand the public interest requirement from the perspective of enabling the investigation agency to investigate the crime against the society in order that the interest of the community to ensure that a culprit is traced and brought to book is also safeguarded. The argument inspired by the observations in Raj Narain ‘s case [1975] 3 S.C.R. p. 333 and S P Gupta’s case [1982] 2 S.C.R. p. 365 (at pp. 622, 624) in the context of claim for privilege in regard to section 123 of Evidence Act, which have no direct bearing, is also effectively answered in the light of the foregoing discussion as the`Public Interest’ aspect is also taken care of. In the ultimate analysis, it is not possible to sustain the plea of the petitioners, which is rooted in the mistrust of the court itself, that the provision is unreasonable and arbitrary. There is also another dimension of the issue. Section 172 embodies a composite scheme. The duty cast under Clause (1) and the rider added by Clause 1(3) thereof from integral part of the scheme. Clause (3) cannot be struck down in isolation whilst retaining Clause (1). The legislature in its wisdom has cast this obligation only subject to the rider. Clause (3) cannot be viewed in isolation. Under the circumstances, we concur with the view of the High Court and repulse the challenge. These are the reasons which impelled us to dismiss the petitions.

Petitions dismissed.

 

 

Conclusion

From the above text, we have observed that case diaries, even though not admissible as substantive evidence are an important part of the investigation. If analyzed properly, they may lead to further people which might have evidence to give. They are one of the tools to aid the Court in reaching its decision, however, they are not the turning point of the case itself. These diaries should be maintained properly and the information in them should be complete and not tampered with. They give credibility to an investigation.

 

Leave a Reply

Articles

Equilibria CBD Gummies (Pros and Cons) Is It Scam Or Trusted?

Basically, Equilibria CBD Gummies have been shown the way that strain, especially consistent tension, can hurt the immune structure, making it less prepared to battle off sicknesses and contaminations. Stress can be truly perfect for you. The valuable thing about pressure, eustress, is that the very thing you want is an opposite thing to the horrendous thing, […]

Read More
Articles

Equilibria CBD Gummies (Scam Exposed) Ingredients and Side Effects

Equilibria CBD Gummies are a reasonable extraordinary and hearty course of activity.They incorporate present day and standard adornments to address or fix logicalissues. You need to kill the cannabinoids from the plant with exorbitant mindfulness. It very well might bejoined with first rate trimmings to make it extra enormous and taste better.The creator besides makes sense […]

Read More
Articles

Bio Lyfe Keto Gummies Reviews (Scam Or Trusted) Beware Before Buying

Bio Lyfe Keto Gummies are metabolites of DHEA, a fundamental substance known to invigorate the effects of making on many body limits. Since keto gummies don’t separate into estrogen or testosterone, it is a 100% safe choice rather than its parent compound. Ketogenic gum has been shown to help the body with getting in shape by […]

Read More