HC: Letter to Police Officer after initiation of investigation is governed by provision of embargo u/s 162(1) Cr.P.C. (Read Order)

The Kerala High Court has observed that a letter addressed to the police officer by a person after the investigation process has been initiated of an offence comes with the ambit of Section 162(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Section 162(1) of the Code states that, no statement made to the police officer during the course of investigation if made in writing should contain the signatures of the person making the same. Moreover it further states that such record or statement made should not be used as a piece of evidence in at enquiry or at trial in respect of any offence under the investigation at the time when such statement was made except as provided therein.

Case of the Appellant

Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi  was dealing with an appeal against conviction under the Abkari Act. In this case the Trial Court, considered a relevant question of law as to whether the bar undr Section 162(1) will apply in the present case .  As in the present case the court for upholding the accused as a convict laid stress upon the letter sent by the Excise Circle Inspector, Thriuvalla  to the Excise Inspector who was in charge of the investigation. Thus the issue confronted by the Court was that the embargo or restriction mentioned under Section 162 (1) of the Code will apply to the piece of information  collected from the person by the police officer via letter or any other sort of written communication made to him.

Observation of the Court

The Court cited the precedent Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh wherein it was pronounced by the Court that the prohibition mentioned in the Section 162(1) in relation to the statement given to the police officer during the course of investigation cannot be set aside by the police officer not recording himself the statement of purpose but comes into his knowledge as a  addressed by the person to the concerned police officer. The precedents namely Vinod Chaturvedi  v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Rajeevan v. Superintendence of Police were also referred.  Thus allowing the appeal the Court asserted “ In the instant case the investigation was conducted by Excise Inspector.  After the amendment of Section 50 of the Act with effect from 03.06.1997, Abkari offences under the Act can only file a final report in accordance with Section 173 (2) of the Code and they have to be treated as police officers . If that be so, a statement made by a person to an Excise Inspector during the course of investigation has to be excluded from evidence by virtue of Section 162(1) of the Code. In the above circumstances, Ext.7 letter has to be excluded from evidence. Thus, there is no evidence to find the petitioner was the licensee of toddy shop during the relevant period.

Case Details

Before:  Kerela High Court

Quorom: Justice R. Narayana Pisharadri

Case Title: M.R. Balkrishnan v. State of Kerela.

Read Order@ LatestLaws. Com