MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Section 94 Cr.P.C. – Summons to Produce Document

Karnataka High Court

Decided On Oct-25-2016
Criminal Petition No. 7053 of 2013 connected with Criminal Petition No. 5821 of 2013
Judge Anand Byrareddy

Dr. Y. Manjunath and Another
Vs.
State of Karnataka

Judgment:
Anand Byrareddy, J.

1. These petitions are listened and likely of by this common order, as a petitions are filed severe a same proceedings.

2. The contribution are staid to be as follows. The postulant in a initial of these petitions was pronounced to be operative as a Deputy Commissioner of Excise, decorated as indicted 8 and a postulant in a second of these petitions was pronounced to be operative as an Inspector of Excise and in-charge Additional Deputy Superintendent of Excise, Mysore, decorated as indicted 4.

3. It transpires that a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Mysore, on receiving information of certain hurtful practices in a Office of a Inspector of Excise, Range we and IV, Mysore, is pronounced to have performed a hunt aver from a Court of a District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Mysore, to control a hunt of a pronounced offices. Accordingly, he is pronounced to have proceeded with his staff and other panch witnesses to a Office premises of a Deputy Superintendent of Excise and a bureau premises of a petitioners. Both a offices were pronounced to be situated in a same building. The raiding celebration is pronounced to have reached a pronounced offices during about 12.40 p.m. on 27-2-2012. It transpires one Dakshinamurthy, Sub-Inspector of Excise was present, who was pronounced to have been served with a hunt warrant. The Inspector of Excise was not to be found in a office. The hunt celebration had afterwards entered a room where Nagesh, a Second Division Assistant (accused 2) and one Rajappa, an Excise ensure (accused 3) were pronounced to be present. On enquiry with them as regards applications for renovation of licences filed by M/s. SB Wines Corner and M/s. Gandharva Wines, indicted 2 is pronounced to have constructed dual files and an volume of Rs. 41,000/- each, that was to be handed over to a Excise Inspector and that was pronounced to have been handed over by one Yogesh. The pronounced volume of Rs. 82,000/- that was not towards any legitimate price or charges was pronounced to have been seized and a sum noted.

Thereafter, a hunt group had left to a Office of Excise Zone we and found one chairman who is pronounced to have come there in tie with renovation of looseness per to M/s. Maruthi Wines and another looseness of his crony per to M/s. Aditya Wines and he had sensitive that money of Rs. 1,23,000/- had been handed over to Chowda Naik, an dig ensure (accused 5) on a instructions of a postulant in a initial of a petitions (accused 8). On enquiry with Chowda Naik, he is pronounced to have constructed a files and money amounting to Rs. 1,23,000/- and also reported that a sum of Rs. 41,000/- had been handed over to one Eshwarappa, an dig ensure (accused 6), who in spin is pronounced to have handed over a volume to another guard, Umesh (accused 7). The pronounced volume also carrying been recovered, a mahazar is pronounced to have been drawn in this regard. The reason of Thammanna (accused 4), a postulant in a second of these petitions, was pronounced to have been obtained. As good as that of his counterpart, Susanna (accused 1) of Range IV was pronounced to have been obtained.

Thus, after recording a exegetic statements of a indicted and seizure of money amounting in all to Rs. 2.46 lakhs, as good as dual compress discs containing a purported review between a postulant in a initial of these petitions and one Chandrashekar, all a indicted were pronounced to have been taken into control and constructed before a Court. They had been subsequently expelled on bail.

4. Aggrieved by a registration of a box in Crime No. 11 of 2012 for offences punishable underneath Section 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) review with Section 13(2) of a Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a benefaction petitions are filed.

5. The schooled Senior Advocate Sri C.V. Nagesh, appearing for a Counsel for a postulant in a initial of these petitions, would contend that a registration of rapist box is yet any basis. It is forked out that when a box is to be purebred opposite a chairman for a cognisable offence, a mixture of a crime contingency be stirring from a initial information report. There are no materials accessible to even remotely bond a postulant in a elect of any offence.

It is forked out that a news of a Investigation Officer does not divulge a basement for carrying performed a hunt aver and admittedly, no damning element was seized from a possession of a petitioner. Even a purported review as between a postulant and one Chandrashekarof Janatha Wines, pronounced to have been recorded, also did not divulge a probable elect of any crime alleged.

It is contended that a box carrying been purebred on a basement of a hunt and seizure that was conducted, it was obligatory on a Investigating Officer to divulge a element or justification that stirred him to obtain such a warrant. It is contended that a hunt aver could have been performed underneath Sections 93 to 98 of a Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr. P.C’ for brevity) where there was reason to trust that a chairman to whom a summons or order, underneath Section 91 or 92 of Cr. P.C. is issued, has not constructed such ask or thing as required. There is no such business stirring in a benefaction case. On a other hand, a hunt aver could have been released underneath Section 94 of Cr. P.C., where there was reason to trust that any place has been used for deposition or sale of stolen property. This again is not a business claimed by a police.

It is contended that a registration of a box after conducting hunt mahazar, seizing of damning element and detain of a indicted and afterwards pierce on a basement of such avowal in a hunt mahazar to registers cognisable case, is a procession not famous to law and such a procession has been announced to be bad in law. Therefore, a really registration of a box is yet any basis. Reliance is placed on a preference of a Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others AIR 2014 SC 187, to emphasize a needed procession prescribed in terms of Section 154 of a Cr. P.C.

It is contended that a inclusion of a postulant in a FIR is clearly an after thought, usually before it was submitted to a Court, as a publicity finished by a military on a news would prove that a box had been purebred usually opposite indicted 1 to 7 in a initial instance.

It is forked out that a military had purebred nonetheless another box in Crime No. 12 of 2012 in matching resources pursuant to a hunt conducted during a bureau of a petitioner, yet there was no damning element found opposite him and a same carrying been questioned before this Court, a record had been quashed. Hence, a postulant seeks identical service in a benefaction petition.

6. The schooled Counsel for a postulant in a second of these petitions would indicate out that, proper a facie, no box could be finished out opposite a postulant as it was an certified business that a postulant was not benefaction in a bureau during a time of a purported occurrence of a offence.

It is contended that there is admittedly no damning element seized from a possession of a petitioner.

The schooled Counsel would titillate identical authorised contentions as has been urged in a initial of these petitions.

7. On a other hand, a schooled Counsel for a respondent would contend that it would be beforehand to interpretation that a petitioners were not in any approach endangered in a elect of a offences alleged. The small deficiency of seizure of any damning element from a chairman of a petitioners or a proxy deficiency from a bureau would not capacitate a petitioners to explain innocence, carrying due courtesy to a modus operandi of perfectionist and receiving bootleg gratification, despite by a middle of subordinate officials, and when a central foster that is approaching is extended by a petitioners, ultimately. The weight of substantiating a sequence and to pierce home a charges is on a prosecution, that would be a attempt during a trial. Hence it is contended that a record can't be scuttled on that belligerent alone.

Insofar as a purported anomaly in a procession followed in a non-registration of a FIR before a hunt record underneath Section 93(1)(c) of a Cr. P.C., is concerned, it is forked out that there is no denote underneath Sections 460 and 461 of Cr. P.C. that any such feebleness would corrupt a proceedings.

It is also contended that a Apex Court has, in some-more than one case, reason that any error, illegality or forsake in review can't have any impact on a investigation, unless there is a miscarriage of probity on that comment or a critical influence is caused. (See Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja AIR 2003 SC 2612 ; Ram Bali v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2004 SC 2329)

It is serve contended that it is also a staid position of law that any disaster or repudiation on a partial of a Investigating Officer, even if should give arise to suspicion, a justification collected ought to be scrutinised independently, notwithstanding a inadequate investigation. A rapist hearing can't be contingent on a control of a Investigating Officer alone. It is also a staid law that any illegality or anomaly in review does not corrupt a whole proceedings:

(a) Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and Others AIR 1998 SC 1850 :1998 AIR SCW 1647: (1998)4 SCC 517;

READ  Cruelty, Desertion, Divorce at 80

(b) Paras Yadav and Others v. State of Bihar AIR 1999 SC 644 :1999 AIR SCW 296 : (1999)2 SCC 126;

(c) State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy AIR 2000 SC 185 : (1999)8 SCC 715 : 1999 AIR SCW 4276;

(d) Amar Singh v. Balzvinder Singh AIR 2003 SC 1164 (paras 14,15 and 16);

(e) Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and Others v. State of Punjab AIR 2004 SC 1920 (paras 4,5,6 and 7); and

(f) Paramjit Singh alias Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab, by Secretary (Home) AIR 2008 SC 441;

(g) State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Shri Ram Singh AIR 2000 SC 870 (paras 8,9, 10 and 13).

It is contended, that as laid down by a Apex Court, an review is not an exploration or hearing before a Court, that is a reason that a Legislature has not contemplated that any anomaly in review as being of sufficient stress to corrupt a proceedings. (See Niranjan Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 142).

It is serve contended that even presumption that a rough enquiry conducted by a respondent was bad in law, a same does not outcome in a record being vitiated. The Apex Court has reason in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi AIR 1964 SC 221, that underneath a Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 even if one or dual stairs in a review has commenced progressing to a registration of a FIR and if element has been gathered, afterwards it is for a Trial Court to confirm a value of a materials so collected. It is contended that in Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2014 SC 1106, a Apex Court has serve laid down that even if element has been illegally obtained, still a Investigating Agency can rest on such element and it is for a Court to check a admissibility or differently of a evidence.

8. The schooled Special Public Prosecutor has constructed extracts of a germane General Diary entries finished usually before to conducting a hunt and seizure in a box and seeks to place faith on a visualisation of a Apex Court in Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. and Others v. Tapan Kumar Singh AIR 2003 SC 4140, wherein it was reason that a contribution staid in a General Diary entrance prima facie disclosed a elect of an crime underneath Section 13 of a PC Act and hence could be treated as an FIR.

In a light of a above contentions, it might be pronounced that it would be beforehand for this Court to interpretation that a petitioners had no palm in a collection of monies from private parties merely on comment of a proxy deficiency from a premises or given there was no liberation of any damning element from them. The weight of substantiating a sequence and their probable impasse is on a assign and would be germane during a trial, supposing a Trial Court chooses to support charges opposite them. It would not be advantageous for this Court to arrive during commentary of fact during this theatre of a proceedings.

9. The points of law that do arise for care are:

(a) Whether a whole record are debauched on comment of a non-registration of a FIR before a search? and

(b) Whether a General Diary entries finished before to a hunt record could be treated as a FIR?

In responding a initial indicate for consideration, given a Constitution Bench of a Supreme Court has had arise to cruise a needed procession to be followed, in Lalita Kumari’s box (supra) it would be useful to keep a law laid down therein in view. It was a command petition filed underneath Article 32 of a Constitution of India by Lalita Kumari, a minor, by her father for a distribution of a command of Habeas Corpus or a instruction of a like inlet opposite a respondents therein for a insurance of his teenager daughter, who was pronounced to have been kidnapped. It was urged that on 11-5-2008, a created news was submitted by a postulant before a officer-in-charge of a military hire concerned, who did not take any movement on a same. Thereafter, when a Superintendent was moved, an FIR was registered. But even thereafter, no stairs were taken possibly to detain a indicted or for a liberation of a minor.

A dual Judges Bench of a Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 7 SCC 164, after seeing a craziness in a registration of FIRs by Police Officers on a box by box basis, opposite a nation is pronounced to have released notices to a Union of India and a Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories, detached from a endangered Police authorities, to a outcome that if stairs are not taken for registration of FIRs immediately and a copies thereof are not handed over to a complainants, they might pierce a Magistrates endangered by filing complaints for suitable directions to a military to register a box immediately, and if no movement is taken pursuant thereto, disregard record could be instituted opposite a derelict police.

Pursuant to a above directions when a matter was again heard, by a really same Bench in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 14 SCC 337, it was contended on interest of a postulant that on receipt of information by a military officer in assign of a military hire disclosing a cognisable offence, it is needed for him to register a box underneath Section 154 of a Cr. P.C. and placed faith on a following decisions of dual Judges Benches of a Apex Court:

1. State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 : AIR 1992 SC 604 :1992 AIR SCW 237;

2. Ramesh Kumari v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi and Others AIR 2006 SC 1322 : (2006)2 SCC 677 : 2006 AIR SCW 1021; and

3. Parkash Singh Bada and Another v. State of Punjab and Others AIR 2007 SC 1274 : (2007)1 SCC 1 : 2007 AIR SCW 1415.

On a other hand, it was contended, on interest of one of a State Governments, that an officer-in-charge of a military hire was not thankful underneath law, on receipt of information disclosing elect of a cognisable offence, to register a box rather a choice lay in him, to reason a arrange of rough enquiry in propinquity to a sincerity or differently of a accusations finished in a report. The following decisions were pronounced to have been cited in support of a above contention:

1. P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras AIR 1971 SC 520 : (1970)1 SCC 595;

2. Sevi and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another AIR 1981 SC. 1230 : 1981 Supp. SCC. 43;

3. Shashikant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others AIR 2007 SC 351 : (2007) 1 SCC 630 : 2006 AIR SCW 6182; and

4. Rajinder Singh Katoch v. Chandigarh Administration and Others AIR 2008 SC 178 : (2007)10 SCC 69 : 2007 AIR SCW 6453.

In perspective of this dissimilarity of opinion, a matter was referred to a incomparable Bench.

The matter carrying been placed before a Bench of 3 Judges, it was pronounced to have been listened in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2012)4 SCC 1, and it was opined as follows:

“97. We have delicately analysed several judgments delivered by this Court in a final several decades. We clearly discern anomalous authorised opinions of this Court on a categorical issue: possibly underneath Section 154 of Cr. P.C., a Police Officer is firm to register an FIR when a cognisable crime is finished out or he (Police Officer) has an option, choice or embodiment of conducting some kind of rough enquiry before induction a FIR.

98. Tire schooled Counsel appearing for a Union of India and opposite States have voiced totally anomalous views even before this Court. This Court also forged out a special difficulty in a box of medical doctors in a aforementioned cases of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Santosh Kumar, AIR 2006 SC 2648 : 2006 AIR SCW 3608 and Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Another, AIR 2004 SC 4091 : 2004 AIR SCW 4442 where rough enquiry had been presumed before induction an FIR. Some Counsel also submitted that a CBI Manual also envisages some kind of rough enquiry before induction a FIR.

99. The emanate that has arisen for care in these cases is of good open importance. In perspective of a anomalous opinions in a vast series of cases motionless by this Court, it has turn intensely critical to have a transparent eloquence of law and adjudication by a incomparable Bench of this Court for a advantage of all endangered a Courts, a Investigating Agencies and a citizens.

100. Consequently, we ask a Hon’ble a Chief Justice to impute these matters to a Constitution Bench of during slightest 5 Judges of this Court for an lawful judgment.”

It is in this demeanour that a matter was deliberate by a Constitution Bench. The doubt before a Constitution Bench associated to a interpretation of Section 154 of a Cr. P.C. and to incidentally cruise Sections 156 and 157 thereof.

On an elaborate care of a matter, it was reason in undeniable terms, that Section 154 of a Code postulates a needed registration of FIRs on receipt of all cognisable offences. However, certain exceptions were beheld as for instance in a box of allegations relating to medical loosening on a partial of doctors and in propinquity to cases involving crime and it was resolved thus:

“108. In a context of offences relating to corruption, this Court in P. Sirajuddin (supra) voiced a need for a rough exploration before pierce opposite open servants.

109. Similarly, in Tapan Kumar Singh (supra), this Court has certified a rough exploration before to induction an FIR usually on a belligerent that during a time a initial information is received, a same does not divulge a cognisable offence.

READ  Whether Service of notice can be proved by proving Photocopies of Acknowledgment containing signature of other side?

110. Therefore, in perspective of several counter-claims per registration or non-registration, what is compulsory is usually that a information given to a military contingency divulge a elect of a cognisable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognisable crime is finished out in a information given, afterwards a FIR need not be purebred immediately and maybe a military can control a arrange of rough corroboration or exploration for a singular purpose of ascertaining as to possibly a cognisable crime has been committed. But, if a information given clearly mentions a elect of a cognisable offence, there is no other choice yet to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not germane during a theatre of registration of FIR, such as, possibly a information is secretly given, possibly a information is genuine, possibly a information is convincing etc. These are a issues that have to be accurate during a review of a FIR. At a theatre of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely possibly a information given ex facie discloses a elect of a cognisable offence. If, after investigation, a information given is found to be false, there is always an choice to prosecute a complainant for filing a fake FIR.

Conclusion/Directions:

111. In perspective of a aforesaid discussion, we hold:

(i) The Registration of FIR is needed underneath Section 154 of a Code, if a information discloses elect of a cognisable crime and no rough exploration is slight in such a situation.

(ii) If a information perceived does not divulge a cognisable crime yet indicates a prerequisite for an inquiry, a rough exploration might be conducted usually to discern possibly cognisable crime is disclosed or not.

(iii) If a exploration discloses a elect of a cognisable offence, a FIR contingency be registered. In cases where rough exploration ends in shutting a complaint, a duplicate of a entrance of such closure contingency be postulated to a initial adviser forthwith and not after than one week. It contingency divulge reasons in brief for shutting a censure and not pierce further.

(iv) The military officer can't equivocate his avocation of induction crime if cognisable crime is disclosed. Action contingency be taken opposite imperfect officers who do not register a FIR if information perceived by him discloses a cognisable offence.

(v) The range of rough exploration is not to determine a sincerity or differently of a information perceived yet usually to discern possibly a information reveals any cognisable offence.

(vi) As to what form and in that cases rough exploration is to be conducted will count on a contribution and resources of any case. The difficulty of cases in that rough exploration might be finished are as under:

(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes;

(b) Commercial offences;

(c) Medical loosening cases;

(d) Corruption cases;

(e) Cases where there is aberrant delay/laches in initiating rapist prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ check in stating a matter yet satisfactorily explaining a reasons for delay.

The aforesaid are usually illustrations and not downright of all conditions that might aver rough inquiry.

(vii) While ensuring and safeguarding a rights of a indicted and a complainant, a rough exploration should be finished time firm and in any box it should not surpass 7 days. The fact of such check and a causes of it contingency be reflected in a General Diary entry

(viii) Since a General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is a record of all information perceived in a military station, we approach that all information relating to cognisable offences, possibly ensuing in registration of FIR or heading to an inquiry, contingency be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in a pronounced Diary and a preference to control a rough exploration contingency also be reflected, as mentioned above.

112. With a above directions, we dispose of a anxiety finished to us. List all a matters before a suitable Bench for ordering on merits.”

It is impending to note that a Apex Court has laid down a needed procession to be followed. However, it is not also laid down that in a eventuality of a relapse in this courtesy that a whole record are vitiated.

On a other hand, in Niranjan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 142, a 4 Judges Bench has reason thus:

“14. But a schooled Counsel have not been means to uncover to us that divide 109 of Chapter XI of a Police Regulations has a force of law. In this tie anxiety might be finished to Chapter XLV of a Code of Criminal Procedure traffic with bootleg and strange record and to Section 529 laying down irregularities that do not corrupt proceedings, while Section 530 concerns irregularities that corrupt proceedings. Section 537 is to a outcome that theme to a supplies contained in a prior sections of that Chapter no finding, visualisation or sequence upheld by a Court of efficient office shall be topsy-turvy or altered underneath Chapter XXVII or on interest or rider on comment of, among other things, any error, repudiation or anomaly in a complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, visualisation or other record before or during hearing or in any exploration or other record underneath a Code. There is an reason combined that:

“in last possibly any error, repudiation or anomaly in any pierce underneath this Code has occasioned a disaster of justice, a Court shall have courtesy to a fact possibly a conflict could and should have been lifted during an progressing theatre in a proceedings.”

It is loyal that a conflict was taken before a schooled Sessions Judge and, therefore, a reason can't be applied. In these resources and on a balance that a Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, are merely directions per a march of conduct, can it be staid that a crack of it would corrupt a trial? The Code of Criminal Procedure in laying down a omissions or irregularities that possibly corrupt a record or does not anywhere privately contend that a mistake committed by a Police Officer during a march of a review can be pronounced to be an illegality or irregularity. Investigation is positively not an exploration or hearing before a Court and a fact that there is no specific sustenance possibly approach in Chapter XLV with honour to omissions or mistakes committed during a march of review solely with courtesy to a holding of an inquisition is, in a opinion, a sufficient denote that a Legislature did not anticipate any anomaly in review as of sufficient stress to corrupt or differently form any feebleness in a exploration or trial.

15. The schooled Counsel for a State of Uttar Pradesh invited a courtesy to a few cases that uncover that even defilement of a supplies of a Code would not volume to an illegality.

16. The decisions of their Lordships of a Judicial Committee reported in Pulukuri Kottayya and Others v. King-Emperor, 74 Ind. App. 65 : AIR 1947 PC 67 and Zahiruddin v. Emperor, 74 Ind. App. 80 : AIR 1947 PC 75 lay down that a crack of Sections 162 and 172 of a Code does not volume to an illegality. If therefore such an repudiation could not corrupt a trial, it is all a some-more reasonable that a disaster to heed to a sequence of control prescribed by a State Government on military officers can't in any approach meddle with a legality of a trial. That disaster to inspect an crime does not indispensably influence an indicted and therefore any mistake or repudiation in conducting review can't corrupt a hearing has been laid down in Hafiz Mohamad v. Emperor, AIR 1931 Pat. 150 (C). At page 152, Adami, J. observes as follows:

“There can be no doubt that a Sub-Inspector in his procession disobeyed certain supplies of a law, and for that he could be punished, if a authorities deemed it fit, yet we can't find that his disaster was to a influence of a petitioners. Nor can we see how disaster scrupulously to control an review into an crime can corrupt a hearing that was started on a final news after a investigation”.

Significantly, there is no anxiety to this preference in Lalita Kumari’s case.

Insofar as a subsequent indicate for consideration, is concerned, a following contention in Lalita Kumari clearly lays down a authorised position:

“48 The First Information Report is in fact a “information” that is perceived initial in indicate of time, that is possibly given in essay or is reduced to writing. It is not a “substance” of it, that is to be entered in a diary prescribed by a State Government. The tenure ‘General Diary’ (also called as ‘Station Diary’ or ‘Daily Diary’ in some States) is confirmed not underneath Section 154 of a Code yet underneath a supplies of Section 44 of a Police Act, 1861 in a States to that it applies, or underneath a particular supplies of a Police Act(s) germane to a State or underneath a Police Manual of a State, as a box might be. Section 44 of a Police Act, 1861 is reproduced below:

“44. Police Officers to keep diary.-It shall be a avocation of any officer in-charge of a Police Station to keep a ubiquitous diary in such form as shall, from time to time, be prescribed by a State Government and to record therein, all complaints and charges preferred, a names of all persons arrested, a names of a complainants, a offences charged opposite them, a weapons or skill that shall have been taken from their possession or otherwise, and a names of a witnesses who shall have been examined.

The Magistrate of a District shall be during autocracy to call for and check such diary.”

49. It is impending to note that during a year 1861, when a aforesaid Police Act, 1861 was passed, a Code of Criminal Procedure, 1861 was also passed. Section 139 of that Code dealt with registration of FIR and this Section has also referred to a word “diary”, as can be seen from a denunciation of this section, as reproduced below:

READ  Gift after marriage is not dowry

“139. Complaint, etc., to be in writing.-Every censure or information elite to an officer-in-charge of a Police Station, shall be reduced into writing, and a piece thereof shall be entered in a diary to be kept by such officer, in such form as shall be prescribed by a internal Government.”

Thus, a Police Act, 1861 and a Code of Criminal Procedure, 1861, both of that were upheld in a same year, used a same word “diary”.

50. However, in a year 1872, a new Code came to be upheld that was called a Code of Criminal Procedure, 1872. Section 112 of a Code dealt with a emanate of registration of FIR and is reproduced below:

“112. Complaint to military to be in writing. – Every censure elite to an officer-in-charge of a Police Station shall be reduced into writing, and shall be signed, sealed, or remarkable by a chairman creation it, and a piece thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in a form prescribed by a Local Government.”

51. It is, thus, transparent that in a Code of Criminal Procedure, 1872, a depart was finished and a word ‘book’ was used in place of ‘diary’. The word book’ clearly referred to a FIR book to be confirmed underneath a Code for registration of FIRs.

52. The doubt that possibly a FIR is to be available in a FIR Book or in General Diary, is no some-more res integra. This emanate has already been motionless sanctioned by this Court.

53. In Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar, (1997)8 SCC 476 : AIR 1997 SC 3104, this Court has reason that FIR contingency be purebred in a FIR Register that shall be a book consisting of 200 pages. It is loyal that a piece of a information is also to be mentioned in a Daily Diary (or a General diary). But, a simple requirement is to register a FIR in a FIR Book or Register. Even in Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court reason that FIR has to be entered in a book in a form that is ordinarily called a First Information Report.

54. It is so transparent that registration of FIR is to be finished in a book called FIR book or FIR Register. Of course, in addition, a crux of a FIR or a piece of a FIR might also be mentioned concurrently in a General Diary as mandated in a particular Police Act or Rules, as a box might be, underneath a germane State provisions.

55. The General Diary is a record of all critical transactions/events holding place in a military station, including depart and attainment of military staff, handing over or holding over of charge, detain of a person, sum of law and sequence duties, revisit of comparison officers etc. It is in this context that crux or piece of any FIR being purebred in a military hire is also mentioned in a General Diary given registration of FIR also happens to be a really critical eventuality in a military station. Since General Diary is a record that is confirmed chronologically on day-to-day basement (on any day, starting with new series 1), a General Diary entrance anxiety is also mentioned concurrently in a FIR Book, while FIR series is mentioned in a General Diary entrance given both of these are prepared simultaneously.

56. It is germane to indicate out that FIR Book is confirmed with a series given on an annual basis. This means that any FIR has a singular annual series given to it. This is on identical lines as a box numbers given in Courts. Due to this reason, it is probable to keep a despotic control and lane over a registration of FIRs by a supervisory military officers and by a Courts, wherever necessary. Copy of any FIR is sent to a higher officers and to a Judicial Magistrate concerned.

57. On a other hand, General Diary contains a outrageous series of other sum of a record of any day. Copy of General Diary is not sent to a Judicial Magistrate carrying office over a military station, yet a duplicate is sent to a higher Police Thus, it is not probable to keep despotic control of any and any FIR available in a General Diary by higher military officers and/or a Court in perspective of huge volume of other sum mentioned therein and a numbers changing everyday.

58. The signature of a complainant is performed in a FIR Book as and when a censure is given to a military station. On a other hand, there is no such requirement of receiving signature of a complainant in a ubiquitous diary. Moreover, during times, a censure given might include of vast series of pages, in that box it is usually a crux of a censure that is to be available in a General Diary and not a full complaint. This does not fit in with a idea that what is available in General Diary should be deliberate to be a fulfilment/compliance with a requirement of Section 154 of registration of FIR. In fact, a common rehearse is to record a finish censure in a FIR book (or apparatus it with a FIR form) yet record usually about one or dual paragraphs (gist of a information) in a General Diary.

61. If during all, there is any craziness in a supplies of Section 154 of a Code and Section 44 of a Police Act, 1861, with courtesy to a fact as to possibly a FIR is to be purebred in a FIR book or in a General Diary, a supplies of Section 154 of a Code will overcome and a supplies of Section 44 of a Police Act, 1861 (or identical supplies of a particular analogous Police Act or Rules in other particular States) shall be blank to a border of a repugnancy. Thus, FIR is to be available in a FIR Book, as mandated underneath Section 154 of a Code, and it is not scold to state that information will be initial available in a General Diary and usually after rough inquiry, if required, a information will be purebred as FIR.”

While carrying reason as above, a Apex Court has remarkable with capitulation a well-developed business as in a box of Tap an Kumar Singh’s box supra, and a observations to a following outcome therein:

“90. In Tapan Kumar Singh, AIR 2003 SC 4140 : 2003 AIR SCW 2133 (supra), it was reason as under:

“20. It is well-settled that a initial information news is not an encyclopaedia, that contingency divulge all contribution and sum relating to a crime reported. An adviser might board a news about a elect of an crime yet he might not know a name of a plant or his assailant. He might not even know how a occurrence took place. A initial adviser need not indispensably be an eye-witness so as to be means to divulge in good fact all aspects of a crime committed. What is of stress is that a information given contingency divulge a elect of a cognisable crime and a information so lodged contingency yield a basement for a military officer to think a elect of a cognisable offence. At this theatre it is adequate if a military officer on a basement of a information given suspects a elect of a cognisable offence, and not that he contingency be assured or confident that a cognisable crime has been committed. If he has reasons to suspect, on a basement of information received, that a cognisable crime might have been committed, he is firm to record a information and control an investigation. At this theatre it is also not compulsory for him to prove himself about a truth of a information. It is usually after a finish review that he might be means to news on a truth or differently of a information. Similarly, even if a information does not allow all a sum he contingency find out those sum in a march of review and collect all a compulsory evidence. The information given disclosing a elect of a cognisable crime usually sets in suit a inquisitive machinery, with a perspective to collect all compulsory evidence, and afterward to take movement in suitability with law. The loyal exam is possibly a information furnished provides a reason to think a elect of an offence, that a military officer endangered is empowered underneath Section 156 of a Code to investigate. If it does, he has no choice yet to record a information and ensue to inspect a box possibly himself or entrust any other Competent Officer to control a investigation. The doubt as to possibly a news is true, possibly it discloses full sum per a demeanour of occurrence, possibly a indicted is named, and possibly there is sufficient justification to support a allegations are all matters that are visitor to a care of a doubt possibly a news discloses a elect of a cognisable offence. Even if a information does not give full sum per these matters, a Investigating Officer is not excluded of his avocation to inspect a box and learn a loyal facts, if he can.”

Even presumption that there has been a relapse in following a needed procession before camp a FIR, it would not outcome in a whole record being vitiated, yet might have a temperament on a value of a purported damning element collected pursuant to a inadequate investigation, that it would be for a Trial Court to consider, and it would also be for a Trial Court to check a admissibility or differently of a justification that is pronounced to have been performed pursuant to a inadequate investigation.

In a light of a above, a petitions do not consequence care and are dismissed. The halt sequence of stay postulated progressing stands vacated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 MyNation KnowledgeBase
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

READ  Passing of orders by lower court ignoring judicial pronouncement of supreme court amounts to judicial impropriety
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation