Pre-charge document supply in private complaint cases is not required where the Code excludes police-report procedure by implication.

In a warrant case instituted on a private complaint, the Code of Criminal Procedure distinguishes such proceedings from cases based on a police report, and the police-report disclosure procedure cannot be imported by analogy. Because the Code makes no express or implied provision requiring the complainant to supply copies of documents at the pre-charge evidence stage, the accused has no entitlement to those copies in a complaint case. Section 294 does not create such a right at that stage, and natural justice cannot override the statutory scheme where the Legislature has excluded it by implication.

---

---

Issues: Whether in a warrant case instituted on a private complaint, the accused is entitled to copies of documents at the pre-charge evidence stage, and whether the procedure for police-report cases can be imported into such complaint cases.

Analysis: The Code of Criminal Procedure makes a clear distinction between cases instituted on a police report and those instituted otherwise than on a police report. The provisions requiring supply of copies in police-report cases were consciously introduced for that category of cases, while no corresponding provision was made for private complaint cases. The absence of an express provision, coupled with the statutory scheme, indicates that the complainant is not bound either expressly or by necessary implication to furnish copies of documents produced in support of a private complaint. Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not create such a right at the pre-charge stage. Principles of natural justice cannot be used to override or extend the statutory procedure where the Legislature has excluded such application by necessary implication.

Conclusion: The accused had no entitlement to copies of documents at the pre-charge evidence stage in a warrant case instituted on a private complaint. The order directing supply of copies was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned procedural direction was quashed, and the complaint proceeding was directed to continue according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: In complaint cases, the disclosure procedure applicable to police-report cases cannot be extended by analogy or on natural justice grounds where the Code does not provide for it expressly or by necessary implication.

---