TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an inquiry conducted by an officer of the Railway Protection Force under section 8(1) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is an investigation within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, so as to attract section 162 of that Code; and whether obtaining signatures of witnesses on statements recorded in such inquiry vitiates the trial.
Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is materially different from the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The inquiry under section 8(1) is described as an inquiry, not an investigation, and section 8(2) confers only such powers of a police officer as are necessary for that purpose. The Act also contains special provisions under sections 9 and 14, including the power to summon witnesses, require them to state the truth, and treat the inquiry as a judicial proceeding for purposes of section 193 of the Penal Code. These features are inconsistent with the application of section 162 of the Code. Since false statements in such inquiry may attract penal consequences, the officer conducting the inquiry is entitled to obtain signatures of witnesses on their statements. The statutory obligation to state the truth and the special machinery of the Act cannot be assimilated to a police investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code.
Conclusion: The inquiry under section 8(1) is not an investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, section 162 does not apply, and taking signatures of witnesses on their statements does not vitiate the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute creates a self-contained inquiry procedure with powers and obligations inconsistent with the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Code yields to the special law and its restrictions on police statements do not apply.
TaxTMI 
