Accused's access to investigation diary can be restricted where courts retain power to inspect and use it for contradiction.

Section 172(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 validly restricts an accused's access to the investigation diary while preserving the court's power to call for, inspect, and use the diary for contradiction where permitted by law. The composite scheme of Section 172 balances fair trial interests against public interest in protecting investigation material, including confidential information and informants. The Court rejected the challenge that the restriction was unreasonable or arbitrary, holding that judicial scrutiny provides an adequate safeguard and that sub-section (3) cannot be struck down in isolation because it is integral to the statutory scheme.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 172(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is unconstitutional as being unreasonable or arbitrary in restricting the accused's access to the case diary, while leaving intact the court's power to examine the diary and use it for contradiction in the manner provided by law.

Analysis: Section 172 forms a composite scheme governing the maintenance and use of the investigation diary. Sub-section (1) imposes the duty to maintain it, sub-section (2) empowers the court to call for and examine the diary, and sub-section (3) limits the accused's right of access except where the diary is used by the police officer to refresh memory or by the court for contradiction. The restriction was held to be supported by a significant safeguard: the court itself may inspect the entries whenever necessary and can use them to protect the accused's interest. The Court accepted that public interest requires both protection of investigation material, including confidential information and informants, and preservation of a fair trial. The challenge proceeded on a mistrust of the court's ability to safeguard fairness, which was rejected. The Court also held that sub-section (3) cannot be struck down in isolation because it is integral to the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: Section 172(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is valid and not unreasonable or arbitrary; the constitutional challenge fails.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory restriction on an accused's access to investigation diaries is constitutionally valid where the court retains unrestricted power to inspect the diary and use it for contradiction, because that judicial safeguard adequately balances fair trial interests with public interest in protecting investigation material.

---