In Re: Natarajan

Venkataraman, J.—This revision petition has been filed by one Natarajan against his conviction u/s 4(1) (a) of the Madras Prohibition Act,

and Section 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 u/s 4(1) (a) of the

Madras Prohibition Act, and rigorous imprisonment for two weeks u/s 447 I.P.C. to run concurrently with the other sentence. This revision petition

has been perferred by the accused.

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

u/s 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.

Section 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. Section 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 Section 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. Section 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

Section 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.

The circumstances in the cases cited by the learned Counsel were different from those of the present case, and those cases do not therefore

really help him. The cases are : Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor ILR (1948) Mad 1 : AIR 1947 P.C. 67, In Re: Boya Chinna Lingappa, , In Re:

Sugali Latchigadu and Others, and In Re: Rangaswami Goundan, .

In ILR (1948) Mad 1 : AIR 1947 PC 07 the Sub Inspector did not initially furnish the note book which contained the earliest statements made

by the five prosecution witnesses (at the inquest), and, in fact, maintained that so such statements were recorded. What was furnished to the

accused was only copies of the statements made later to the Circle Inspector of Police. But at a later stage of the trial, when the Sub Inspector was

examined, he himself produced the note book and it was found that there no vital discrepancies between the statements contained in the note book

and the statements of the witnesses in the witness box. Their Lordships of the Privy Council pointed out that, where the statements are never made

available to the accused, an inference, which is almost irresistible, arises of prejudice to the accused. However, they were satisfied that, in the

peculiar circumstances of the case, no prejudice was occasioned to the accused by the failure to produce in proper time the note book. It was on a

different point that their Lordships remitted the appeal for rehearing by the High Court.

In Re: Boya Chinna Lingappa, , was a case where the statements u/s 161 Crl. P.C. were not made available to the accused at all.

In Re: Sugali Latchigadu and Others, was a case where the Sub Inspector made short notes of the statement of the witnesses at the inquest and

they were destroyed even before the arrival of the Circle Inspector. The present case is distinguishable, because here the notes were only brief and

were actually reduced into writing of the police station and copies of the statements prepared at the police station were furnished to the accused.

In Re: Rangaswami Goundan, was a case where statements were recorded in Tamil, but only translations in English of those statements were

furnished to the accused. It was held that failure to furnish the Tamil statements which were the original statements, vitiated the trial. That is not the

case there.

Apart from the point made by the learned Counsel, there is no reason to interfere with the convictions. The revision petition is, however,

admitted on the question of sentence.

This was the first offence. Hence the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. The fine and the default sentence will

remain. Time for payment of fine, one month from this date.