In Re: Dastagir and ors.

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 162 - granting copies--court must satisfy itself that contradictions exist--court's duty to grant them subject to proviso 2. - t.n. district police act, 1859 [act no. 24/1859]. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); [a.p. shah,c.j., f.m. ibrajhim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the proviso to article 309 of the constitution., the rule is not assailed on the ground of lack of competence. it is challenged only on the ground that it is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. but it is well settled that if a rule passes the twin tests of (i) being founded on an intelligible differentia, and (ii) such differentia having a nexus with the object sought to be achieved, it cannot be said to be violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. the impugned rule creates a classification of persons, who were not involved in criminal cases and persons, who were involved in criminal cases. the object of creating such a classification is to ensure that only those persons, whose character and antecedents were beyond and shadow of doubt alone, are permitted entry into the police service of the state. the rule is only a reflection of the intention of the government to maintain purity of administration. the rule merely provides a check post or a filter point, to ensure that only those, who had a clean record of personal life, are admitted into the system. that the existing system, has already come under heavy dose of criticism, cannot be swept under the carpet...........the alleged offence is in progress before the learned third presidency magistrate. prosecution witness no. 1 has been examined-in-chief, and one question has been put to him in cross-examination. at that stage petitioners' pleader applied under section 162, criminal procedure code, for a copy of p.w. no. 1's statement to the police. the learned magistrate reduced to grant it. hence this application in revision. it is little difficult to understand the precise reason for the refusal. the magistrate begins by pointing out that the one answer given by the witness in cross-examination does not establish any contradiction, but if he means by that the accused's pleader must either establish an actual instance of contradiction or lay a foundation for the belief that such a contradiction will be found if the police record is referred to, he is asking the accused's pleader to perform an impossible task : tahal saithwar v. emperor : air1931 all34 ; public prosecutor, madras v. vedi : air1930 mad185 and babar ali sardar v. emperor : air1929 cal182 .2. from what the magistrate goes on to say, however, it seems to me that he must also have refused to grant the copy because he did not himself on examining the statement perceive in it anything which contradicted the witness's evidence in court, though be does not specifically say this. this raises the question whether under section 162, criminal procedure code, it is the duty of the court to satisfy itself that a contradiction exists before granting a copy. there are two cases in which this question has considered which have been brought to my attention. one is that reported in jhari gope v. emperor : air1929 pat268 there it is clearly laid down that section 162, criminal ' procedure code, does not require the court so to satisfy itself and that subject to the provisions of the second proviso regarding any part of the statement the court must grant the copy and it is for the accused's counsel to examine it after it is.....