Disclosure of inquiry statements under railway property law is limited; no automatic pre-trial right to copies for contradiction.

Statements recorded in an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 were held not to attract the disclosure regime applicable to police investigations under the criminal procedure code, because the inquiry was not treated as a Chapter XIV investigation and the Force officer was not equivalent to an officer in charge of a police station. The accused also had no independent pre-trial right to copies of such statements merely for contradiction under the evidence law, as prior statements were not treated as public documents. Any use of the statements for corroboration or contradiction depended on the trial court's control, and no appellate grievance lay where that course was not pursued at trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the officer conducting an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 was bound to supply copies of witness statements to the accused as under the criminal procedure code; (ii) whether the accused was entitled in advance to copies of such statements for the purpose of contradiction under the evidence law; (iii) whether, despite non-production of copies at trial, the accused could complain in appeal of prejudice from non-supply of the statements.

Issue (i): Whether the officer conducting an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 was bound to supply copies of witness statements to the accused as under the criminal procedure code.

Analysis: The inquiry under the Act was held not to be an investigation under Chapter XIV of the criminal procedure code. The officer of the Force did not possess the attributes of an officer in charge of a police station, and the prosecution was initiated by complaint rather than police report. For that reason, the statutory duty to furnish copies under the provision corresponding to Section 173(4) did not apply.

Conclusion: The obligation to supply copies of witness statements did not arise, and the answer was against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused was entitled in advance to copies of such statements for the purpose of contradiction under the evidence law.

Analysis: Statements recorded in the course of the statutory inquiry could be used to corroborate a witness or, with leave of court, for cross-examination where the witness was hostile. But the accused had no general right to obtain advance copies merely to invoke the rule of contradiction. The prior statement was not treated as a public document, and the evidence law did not create an independent right to pre-trial supply of copies.

Conclusion: The accused was not entitled as of right to advance copies for contradiction, and the answer was in the negative.

Issue (iii): Whether, despite non-production of copies at trial, the accused could complain in appeal of prejudice from non-supply of the statements.

Analysis: The right to challenge a witness by reference to a prior statement had to be worked out at the trial stage by laying the necessary foundation. The court could, in its discretion, call for the relevant statement to ensure a fair trial and permit contradiction if justified. Where that course was not pursued and the witness had been cross-examined, no substantial grievance could be raised for the first time in appeal.

Conclusion: No appellate grievance on non-supply was available on the facts, and the answer was against the accused.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that the prosecution had no general duty to furnish copies of inquiry statements, though the trial court could secure fairness by requiring production of relevant statements where necessary for contradiction or impeachment.

Ratio Decidendi: Statements recorded in an inquiry under the Act may be used for corroboration or contradiction only through the court's control at trial; they do not attract the disclosure regime applicable to police investigations and do not confer a pre-trial right to copies on the accused.

---