IN RE: NATARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by one Natarajan against his conviction under Sec. 4(1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act, and Sec. 447 I.P.C. The allegation against him is that he had trespassed into the premises of the Harbour for transporting three bottles of whisky without a permit. He was arrested with the three bottles of whisky by a Sub -Inspector (P.W. 2) within the Harbour premises at 4 -30 p.m. on 22 -9 -1966. P. W. 1 is another witness who was present besides others. The accused denied the offence. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution evidence, convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 100 under Sec. 4(1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act, and rigorous imprisonment for two weeks under Sec. 447 I.P.C. to run concurrently with the other sentence. This revision petition has been preferred by the accused.

(2.) The only point urged before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the Sub Inspector (P.W. 2) has admitted that he had jotted down some notes while examining P.W. 1 and another person Mani, at the scene of occurrence, and that their statements were reduced to writing under Sec. 161 Crl. P.C. only later at the police station after destroying the notes. The accused has been supplied only with copies of the statements prepared at the police station and not copies of the notes. The learned Counsel urges that this has vitiated the trial, arid has relied on a number of decisions in support of his contention.

(3.) Sec. 161(3) Crl. P.C. says that the police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under the section, and if he does so he shall make a separate record of the statements of each such person whose statement he records. Sec. 173(4) Crl. P.C. as amended by Act 26 of 1955, requires the officer in charge of the police station to furnish to the accused inter alia a copy of the statements recorded under Sub -section (3) of Sec. 161 Crl. P.C. of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. The question therefore is whether the statement prepared at the police station is the statement which was reduced into writing or only the earlier notes which were jotted down. The question may have to be answered with regard to the circumstances of each case and so far as this case is concerned, it does not appear that the notes which were jotted down would themselves have been intelligible to another person. They might been just enough to enable the Sub Inspector to remember the essential particulars. Sec. 161(3) does not seem to prevent the Sub Inspector from making just a few jottings for refreshing his own memory. So far as this case is concerned, I feel no difficulty in holding that the statements which were reduced into writing at the police station immediately after the Sub Inspector reached there, are the statements relevant for the purpose of Sec. 161(3). It has also to be emphasised that the material circumstances had been brought out in the mahazar which was prepared at the scene of occurrence itself.