https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299183 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. en-us Fri, 25 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Dec 2021 11:52:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299183 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299183