Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

New Cr.P.C., 1973 was drafted on the basis of

recommendation of 41st LCR

PREPARED BY LETS LEARN THE LAW

AND LAWNOTES.IN

FOR MORE MATERIALS

CONTACT WHATSAPP NUMBERS: 9596839008, 6301767216
 Object and importance of Cr.P.C.
Substantive and Procedural laws:-
Substantive law is a statutory law that deals with
legal relationship between people or people and the state.
It defines rights and liabilities of parties. It defines
offences and provides punishment for the same. Its object
is to protect society by punishing the offenders.
Substantive criminal law is not self operative. It is for this
reason that Cr.P.C., an adjective branch of criminal law
which is designed to provide machinery for administering
substantive criminal law, provides for detection of crime,
arrest of offenders, collection of evidence, trial procedure
for determination of guilt or innocence and imposition of
suitable punishment on the guilty person.
 Procedural law oversees the litigation process of the
case, by confirming to the step by step process through
which the case passes. Whereas substantive law can be
defined as comprises of statutory rules passed by the
legislature, through the process of enactment, regulating
the conduct of citizens.
Cr.P.C.is mainly adjective law of procedure, providing
the procedure for trial of substantive offences, as contained
in IPC and other laws. However, few provisions of Cr.P.C.,
relating to prevention of offences {chapter VIII, relating to
security for keeping peace and good behaviour; chapter X,
relating to maintenance of public order and tranquillity,
chapter XI relating to preventive action of police and
chapter IX maintenance of wives, children and parents
(125)} are substantive in nature.
Substantive and procedural laws
Basis for comparison Procedural law Substantive law
Meaning PL is a law that specifies SL is the law that states the
the practice, procedure rights and obligations of
and machinery for the parties.
imposition of rights and
duties.
Governs How legal case flows? How people should
behave?
Concerned with Ways and means for Fixation of rights and
imposing substantive law duties of the citizens
Defines Initiation and prosecution Rights of parties and
of criminal cases punishment for wrong
doer.

Related to Matter inside the court Matters outside the court.

Example Cr.P.C., C.P.C., Evidence Act IPC, Contract Act
Scope and importance of Cr.P.C.
• Generally speaking, Cr.P.C., is applicable in respect of
investigation, inquiry and trial (IIT) of every offence under
substantive criminal law, i.e., whether such offence is
punishable under IPC or under any special or local
law.(section 4) However, Cr.P.C., is not unduly rigid. If any
special procedure is given under special law, the same will
prevail.(section 5)
• Eg.,due to local exigencies, the powers of investigation are
given to patwaris (revenue police) in Uttarakhund. They
investigate the crime and submit charge sheet in the court
of Magistrate. Thus, local law and procedure prevails in
Uttarakhund state over the Cr.P.C.
• Uttarakhund HC has recently directed to abolish this
procedure of investigation by revenue police.(see Hindi
Hindustan, dated 13-1-2018, page 16, col. 1)
• Special procedure is applicable to proceedings under
contempt of courts Act and Cr.P.C. is not applicable to
contempt proceedings in as much as contempt is not
an offence u/s 4(2) Cr.P.C.
• Special procedure for inquiry and investigation is
provided for juveniles under J.J. (care and protection
of children) Act, 2015. Juveniles are never sent to jail.
Procedure in the Act prevails over Cr.P.C. Bail
provisions are also easy under JJ Act, 2015
Lecture- 1- Introduction
• The criminal law can be set into motion mainly by two
methods -
A) First, by lodging a F.I.R. at the police station and
B) Second, by lodging a complaint directly to the
Magistrate.
• Whenever an F.I.R is lodged (S.154 & 155 Cr.P.C.) at the
police station, police takes the cognizance of offence.
Police can take the cognizance directly in all cognizable
offences without the orders of the Magistrate. They have
power to arrest without warrant. But if the offence is of
non-cognizable nature then police has no power to arrest
without warrant or authority to start investigation
without the orders of the Magistrate.
• Second method of initiating the criminal process
is complaint. Complaint u/s 2 (d) means any
allegation made orally or in writing to a
Magistrate, with a view to his taking action
under this code, that some person, whether
known or unknown, has committed an offence,
but does not include a police report. Magistrate
is authorized to take cognizance of offence upon
a complaint u/s 190 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. Whenever a
complaint is lodged directly to the Magistrate;
he may take the cognizance himself and
examine the complaint (S.200 Cr.P.C.). He may
also take the statement of witnesses to the
crime, if any, u/s 202 Cr.P.C.
• If, after considering the statements on oath of the
complainant (S.200) and of the witnesses (S.202), the
Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient
ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint
(S.203) and shall briefly record his reason or doing so.
But if in the opinion of the Magistrate, there are
sufficient grounds for proceeding, he may issue the
process u/s 204 Cr.P.C. and may issue summons or
warrants against the accused person(s).
• Summary of beginning of criminal proceedings on a
complaint
1. S. 190 (1) (a) Taking of cognizance by Magistrate
2. S. 200- Recording of statement of complainant
3. S. 202- Recording of statement of witnesses of the
complainant
4(a) S. 203- If no case is made out-Dismissal of
complaint
4(b) S. 204- If grounds for proceeding are sufficient,
summon or warrant shall be issued against the
accused persons. ( bail)
• Magistrate has another option besides taking
cognizance; he may empower the police officer to
investigate the matter (S.156 (3). Similar powers
police acquires when the F.I.R. of a non-cognizable
offence is registered. In such case police officer shall
not investigate a non-cognizable offence without the
orders of the Magistrate but if the Magistrate orders
for police investigation then police officer may
exercise same powers in respect of investigation
except the power to arrest without warrant as in
cognizable case. In cognizable offence the police are
fully empowered to investigate the case without the
orders of the Magistrate and have power to arrest the
accused without warrant. S.154 to 173 Cr.P.C. deal
with the process of investigation.
• There are three stages of a criminal proceeding, i.e.,
• a) Investigation, b) Inquiry and c) Trial (I. I. T.)
• Investigation is always done by police while inquiry is
done always by the orders of the Magistrate. In complaint
cases, truly speaking, the stage of investigation is absent
because the cognizance is directly taken by the Magistrate
and the investigation, if any, done by the police is done on
the orders of the Magistrate only. The investigation results
into,
• (a) Filing of charge sheet/challan showing that a particular
offence is made out or final report that no case is made
out (S.173 Cr.P.C.) or
• (b) That there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable
ground for forwarding the accused to a Magistrate, i.e.,
final report/closure report/expunge the FIR (S.169
Cr.P.C.). The inquiry always results into either charge or
discharge. It is only after the framing of charge that the
trial begins. There are five types of trials in Cr.P.C.
• Term investigation has been defined u/s 2 (h);
investigation includes all the proceedings under this
code for the collection of evidence conducted by a
police officer or by any person (other than a
Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this
behalf.
• Inquiry has been defined u/s 2 (g); inquiry means
every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this
code by a Magistrate or court. Inquiry and trial are
together known as judicial proceedings. (Inquiry +
Trial = Judicial Proceedings)
Distinction between FIR and complaint
• FIR is an information, first in point of time, given to a
police officer for registration of a criminal case at the
police station, praying that suitable action be taken
against the known or unknown persons
• FIR of cognizable offences is lodged u/s 154, whereas
FIR of non-cognizable cases is lodged u/s 155 Cr.P.C.
The investigation of the crime begins with lodging of
FIR and it ends with filing of charge sheet (case made
out) or filing of final report ( no case made out against
any one) or case may be expunged u/s 169 when the
evidence is deficient to proceed with.
• Complaint means any allegation made orally or in
writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking
action under this code, that some person known or
unknown, has committed an offence. But it does not
include a police report. (S.2 d) The police report is
filed by the police at the close of investigation u/s 173
Cr.P.C. (see section 2 (r).
• But a report made by a police officer in a case which
discloses, after investigation, the commission of a
non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a
complaint; and the police officer by whom such
report is made shall be deemed to be complainant.
Charge
• Charge is defined* u/s 2(b).Charge includes any head of
charge when the charge contains more heads than one.
(charge is summary of allegations against accused)
• or A criminal charge is a formal accusation by the state
asserting that someone has committed an offence on a
particular date and time detailing out the facts which
constitute the offence.
• Framing of charge is a part of inquiry. After framing of
charge, trial begins. Charges are framed on the basis of
evidence available in the case diary in police cases in which
charge sheet is filed by the police and on the basis of
evidence recorded by the court u/s 244 in complaint cases
filed directly before the court.
• However no formal charge is framed in summon trials and
summary trials. Only substance of accusation is explained to
the accused instead of framing a charge.
 Commencement of proceedings before a Magistrate

Appearance of accused before the court:-

After filing of a complaint and taking evidence u/s 200
and 202 Cr.P.C. or after receiving a police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C.
and after perusal of case diary, the Magistrate may issue
process for the appearance of accused to attend the trial
before the court. Mainly there are five methods to compel the
presence of the accused before the court for trial, i.e., by issue
of summons, by arrest on B.W. or N.B.W. or by issuing warrant
u/s 82 or 83 Cr.P.C. (subject to bail)
On the receipt of charge sheet, or after taking
evidence u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., Magistrate may issue process
u/s 204 Cr.P.C. for appearance of accused in any of the
following ways:-
 (i) summons
(ii) bailable warrants
(iii) non-bailable warrants.
(iv) By proclamation for person absconding (82)- if not
arrested
(V) By attachment of property of the absconding
accused (83)
• Warrant case and Summons case
• In summons cases, ordinarily the summons are issued first
(S.204 r/w S.2 (w), while in warrant cases court may issue
warrants in the first instance.
• Warrant-case means a case relating to an offence punishable
with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term
exceeding 2 years (S.2 (x).
• Summons-case means a case relating to an offence
punishable up to 2 years and not exceeding 2 years (S.2 (w).
• Summons are ordinarily issued in all summons cases and
also in warrant cases at court’s discretion (S.204 r/w 2 (x).
Warrants are issued in all warrants cases and also in summons
cases (S.87). If the accused is present in the court when the
Magistrate takes cognizance of the case, Magistrate may
require him to execute a bond for appearance (S.88). If the
accused in any case commits breach of this bond, warrant may
be issued for his appearance u/s 89 Cr.P.C.
• Arrest by the police without warrant is also a method
to produce the accused before the court for trial.
Police officers are authorized to arrest without
warrant an accused who has committed a cognizable
offence (S.41).
• The police officer has also power to arrest a person
on his refusal to give his name and address if he has
committed a non-cognizable offence in his presence
(S.42).
• Private persons are also authorized to arrest any
person, who in his presence commits a non-bailable
and cognizable offence (S.43).
• Likewise Magistrate himself may arrest the offender
without warrant u/s 44 Cr.P.C., if offence is committed
in his presence.
 Classification of offences
• In Cr.P.C., offences are classified as: -
a) Cognizable and non-cognizable offences.(see
schedule I)
b) Bailable and non-bailable offences. (see schedule I)
C)Compoundable and non-compoundable offences (S.
320)
• Cognizable and non-cognizable offences
• Whether the offence is cognizable or non-cognizable,
police officer or court is not supposed to apply its
mind. One has to look into first schedule attached to
Cr.P.C. Column no. 4 of schedule classifies all I.P.C.
offences either into cognizable or non-cognizable
offences. The significance of this classification is that
in cognizable offences police officer can start
investigation suo moto and can arrest without
warrant, whereas in non-cognizable offences police
comes into motion only upon the orders of the
Magistrate.
• The term ‘cognizable offence’ and ‘cognizable case’
have been defined in S.2(c) of Cr.P.C. Cognizable
offence means an offence for which, and cognizable
case means a case in which, a police officer may, in
accordance with the first schedule attached to Cr.P.C.
or any other law for the time being in force, arrest
without warrant. Meaning thereby, whether an
offence is cognizable or not we have to look into the
schedule attached to Cr.P.C.
• (Accused person will apply for bail)
• “Non-cognizable offence” means an offence for
which, and “non-cognizable case” means a case in
which, a police officer has no authority to arrest
without warrant.( see section 2(l) Cr.P.C.
 Bailable and non-bailable offences
Column 5 of the schedule one attached with
Cr.P.C., classifies all I.P.C. offences into bailable or non-
bailable offences. Bailable offence means an offence,
which is shown as bailable in the first Schedule, or
which is made bailable by any other law for the time
being in force (S.2 (a). A non-bailable offence means
any other offence, (S.2 (a).
The significance of this distinction is that in
bailable offences accused has a right to get bail (S.436)
while in non-bailable offences; it is the discretion of the
court whether to grant bail or not (S.437). New Cr.P.C.
of 1973 also provides for ‘Anticipatory Bail’ to a person
apprehending arrest for a non-bailable offence (S.438).
• Compoundable and non-compoundable offences
• Next classification of offences from another dimension is
compoundable and non-compoundable. Word
compoundable means to forbear from prosecuting or to
compromise or to come to terms with a person, for
forgoing a claim for an offence. S.320 of the code provides
for compounding of certain offences. There are two tables
in S.320. The offences mentioned in the first table can be
compounded by the person who was aggrieved and
launched the criminal proceedings. But the offences
mentioned in the second table u/s 320 (2) can be
compounded only with the permission of the court by the
aggrieved person, who had originally set the criminal law
into motion. The composition of an offence u/s 320 shall
have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom
the offence has been compounded.
Stages of a trial
• 1. Opening of case for prosecution-by describing the
charge and evidence against accused.
• 2. Discharge- if no ground for proceeding.
• 3. Framing of the charge- if there are grounds for
believing that accused has committed an offence.
• 4. Accused will be asked to plead guilty or claims to be
tried
• 5. Conviction on plea of guilt or
• 6. Date for prosecution evidence- Summons will be
issued against witnesses.
• 7. Evidence for prosecution-PWs
• 8. Recording of statement of accused person (313)
• 9. Evidence for defence- DWs
• 10. Arguments.
• 11. Judgment of acquittal (if case is not proved
beyond reasonable doubt) or
• 12. Judgment of conviction (if case is proved beyond
reasonable doubt and accused is found guilty)
• (benefit of release on probation may be given instead
of sending him to jail) S. 360 Cr.P.C. and
Probation of offenders Act
• Found guilty—Separate hearing on question of
sentence will be given.
• 13. Pronouncement of judgment-- in open court
• Five Types of Trial (SWWSS)
• a) Session trial (S.225-235),
• b) Warrant trial on police report (S.238-243 and 248),
• c) Warrant trial otherwise than on police report, i.e.,
Complaint case (S.244-250),
• d) Summons trial (S.251-259) and
• e) Summary trial (S.260-265).
 Hierarchy of Criminal Courts(functionaries)
Hierarchy of criminal courts under Cr.P.C. has been
created for the trial of offences and rectification of
errors. This hierarchy along with their powers is as
follows: -
1. Supreme Court – (Any sentence, any fine,
authorized by law)
2. High Court – (Any sentence authorized by law)
3. Session Court including Additional Sessions Judge –
(Any sentence authorized by law but the death
penalty is subject to confirmation by High Court –
(S.366 Cr.P.C.)
4. Assistant Session Judge – (sentence not exceeding 10
years, no fine limits).
5. Chief Judicial Magistrate including A.C.J.M. – (Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate including A.C.M.M. in
Metropolitan areas) – Sentence not exceeding 7 years, no
fine limit.
6. Judicial Magistrate Class Ist – Metropolitan Magistrate
in Metropolitan area – (sentence not exceeding 3 years
and fine not exceeding Rs. 10,000/-) (as amended by
Cr.P.C. Amendment Act, 2005).
7. Judicial Magistrate Class IInd – (sentence not exceeding
one year and fine not exceeding Rs. 5,000/-) (as amended
by Cr.P.C. Amendment Act, 2005).
8. Special Judicial Magistrate
9. Executive Magistrate
• These powers of criminal courts are defined u/s 28 and
29 of the Cr.P.C. Sentence may be imposed in default of
payment of fine but such sentence shall not exceed 1/4th
of the term of imprisonment which is maximum fixed for
the offence (S.65 I.P.C. as well as S. 30 Cr.P.C.).
• If the Magistrate thinks that the offence, which he is
trying, deserves a punishment, which is beyond his
power, he shall transfer the case to a higher Magistrate
having the powers (S.325). The Magistrate should be
competent to impose the sentence on the offences
individually. But if a person is convicted, it shall not be
necessary for the court to send the offender for trial
before a higher court by reason only of the aggregate
punishment for several offences exceeds the total limits
for which the Magistrate is competent.
• Eg., Suppose a person is found guilty u/s 323 and 325
IPC by the court of Judicial Magistrate class I, and he
awards one year sentence u/s 323 IPC and 3 years u/s
325 IPC, So the total punishment comes out to be
1+3=4 years. (total sentence is beyond his powers,
but individual sentences are well within his powers
(3/5000)
• There is no need of sending this case to CJM/CMM
u/s 325.
• But in a case of forgery for the purpose of cheating
(467 IPC, punishable up to L.I. or 10 years) if
Magistrate thinks that punishment of 3 years is
inadequate, he should write a letter to CJM/CMM u/s
325 IPC because he can not pass sentence sufficiently
severe.
Hierarchy of criminal courts in India(Summary)
Supreme Court of India Any sentence authorized by Law

High Court in a State Any sentence authorized by Law

District & Sessions Judge/Additional Any sentence authorized by Law.

District & Sessions Judge Death Penalty subject to
confirmation by High Court (S.366)
Assistant Sessions Judge Up to 10 years

Chief Judicial Magistrate / Chief Up to 7 years or fine or both

Metropolitan Magistrate
Judicial Magistrate class I 3/10,000/- or both
/Metropolitan Magistrate

Judicial Magistrate class II 1/ 5,000/- or both

Special Judicial Magistrate(honorary)
Executive Magistrate (may be class I
or II
Hierarchy of Executive Magistrates
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTARTE
SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE

N.B.-They may be class I or Class II Magistrates

under Cr.P.C.
Hierarchy of civil courts in India
Supreme Court of India Original, Appellate and
Writ Jurisdiction, SLP
High Court in a State Original, Appellate,
Revisional and Writ
Jurisdiction
District Judge/Additional Original, Unlimited
District Judge Jurisdiction+ Appellate,
Revisional Jurisdiction
Civil Judge (Senior Unlimited Original
Division) Jurisdiction
Civil Judge (Junior Original Jurisdiction Suits
Division) up to Rs. 25000/-
• To conclude, it is submitted that the rationale behind
the creation of hierarchy of criminal courts is first to
assign petty matters to lower criminal courts so that
experienced judges may be given more serious
matters. When a challan under M.V. Act can be tried
and summarily disposed of by a newly appointed
Magistrate, why an experienced judge with much
higher salary should be assigned the same job. Thus,
saving a public exchequer is the first rationale behind
creation of hierarchy of courts. Secondly, hierarchy is
meant for rectification of human errors committed by
lower courts.
• *-*-*-*-*
Hierarchy of police officers
• 1. Director General of Police (DGP***)—three starred
officer from IPS., cadre.-National emblem over
crossed sword and baton.
• 2. Additional Director General of Police (ADGP***)–
three starred officer from IPS., cadre- National
emblem over crossed sword and baton.=
commissioner of police
• 3. Inspector General of Police(IG*)/ single star with
crossed sword and baton.
• 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP*)-
National emblem+ 3 stars rank in IPS./Additional
Commissioner of Police (ACP)
• 5. Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) or Deputy
Commissioner of Police (DCP)-National emblem+ 2
stars
• 6. Superintendent of Police (SP)/ Deputy
Commissioner of Police (DCP)-National emblem + one
star (junior management level)
• 7. Add. Superintendent of Police (ASP)/ Deputy
Commissioner of Police (ADCP)—only national
emblem
• 8. Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant
commissioner of Police (DSP/ACP)—only 3 stars
• 9. Police Inspector -3 stars
• 10. Assistant Police Inspector-3 stars
• 11. Police sub Inspector—SI-two stars (can investigate
and file charge sheet)
• 12. Assistant Police sub inspector (ASI)-non gazetted
officer-insignia is one star, and red and blue striped
ribbon at the outer edge of the shoulder straps
• 13. Head constable-three point down chevrons on
their sleeves or three bars on their epaulettes.
• 14. constable (lowest rank)-No shoulder insignia
Exercise: what to do if a court has issued N.B.W.
In the court of ACJM, Kasia, State of UP v. SPS
Crime No. 745 of 1994 u/s 323, 353 IPC P.S. Kasia
Offence – Assault or use of criminal force to deter a
public servant from discharge of his duties
Offence is punishable with imprisonment for 2 years of
fine or both.
Offence is cognizable, non-bailable and triable by any
Magistrate
Offence made non-bailable by Cr.P.C., AA 2005
Now NBW is issued by ACJM, Kasia (89)
Advise the accused
(i) If the accused was on bail
1. He can apply for cancellation of warrant (70(2)
2. He can apply for fresh bail if, original order of bail is
not cancelled
Action be taken by the court:-
A) Get him arrested and send him to judicial custody
i.e., Jail
B) Cancel his NBW
C) Issue show cause notice to his sureties u/s 446
D) Forfeit his personal bond and bail bonds of the
sureties and recover the amount of P.B., and B.B. in full
or partially. Court has power to reduce the penalty.
(ii) If the accused was not on bail
• 1. He will have to surrender before the court,
Because bail presupposes custody (437)
• 2. He will be arrested by the police and produced
before the court for remand to jail.
• 3. He will apply for bail
• 4. Now Police has no power to take bail since charge
sheet has been filed in the court.
• 5. Now provision of anticipatory bail is also not
applicable (438)
Different functionaries under Cr.P.C.
• There are mainly four functionaries under Cr.P.C.
1. Criminal courts including trial/appellate/revisional
courts. (according to hierarchy of courts , the presiding
officers of the court will conduct trial according to
Cr.P.C.)
2. Police (CBI, CID, IB, CBCID) (from lodging of FIR till
filing of charge sheet, Taking the remand of accused in
between, and give evidence in court in order to prove
the case) Police force is an instrument for the
prevention and detection of crimes, created under
Police Act, 1861. Every state govt. has its own police
force.
• 3. The prosecutors-Public prosecutors/ APO/SPP-
section 24 (It is their duty to open up and conduct
cases before the court.) PP or APP or APO is the
counsel for state. He represents the state govt. and
conducts the trial. He also appears in criminal
appeals, revisions and other matters (S.301) He can
withdraw from prosecution with the permission of
the state govt. (321)
• 4. The prison officials (to keep the under trial and
convicted persons. Jail is the place where the accused
is kept in judicial custody. Jail may be open/closed.)
• Other functionaries are as follows:-

• 5. Staff of the court—Reader, stenographer, peon,

court Mohiror --reader will present the file before the
court, stenographer takes the dictation and writes
statements of witnesses and judgment as dictated to
him. Peon of the court will call the cases by name of
the parties. Court Mohiror is the police force in court
room. He will take the accused in custody on the
order of the court. He will leave the accused upto
police van, which will lodge him in jail
• 6.Executive magistrate (for granting remand, if judicial
Magistrate is not available) Jurisdiction u/s 107 to 116
Cr.P.C., 133, 144,145 Cr.P.C., Recovery of fine as
arrears of land revenue.
• 6.State govt.( it is the duty of the state govt. to
prosecute the offenders and bring peace in society)
State can withdraw the criminal cases u/s 321 Cr.P.C.,
• 7.Expert witnesses (can give evidence regarding
matching of thumb impressions, handwriting, blood
samples, bore of the pistol, size of the bullet,
condition of the body after death, was it suicide or
murder
• 8. witnesses of fact and formal witnesses. (will prove
the contents of FIR and other documentary evidence)
 9. Accused (he is key character, he is presumed to
be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable
doubt)
10. Accomplice (is an accused in fact. But he may be
produced as witness against other accused persons if
tender of pardon is given to him u/s 306/307 Cr.P.C.,
and is accepted by him. He will remain in custody/bail
as an accused and is produced as a prosecution
witness(PW). If he gives true account of the case, he
will be acquitted, but if, in the opinion of the court,
accomplice has given false evidence, he will be tried for
the original offence in which pardon was granted and
also for the charge of giving false evidence u/s 191 IPC
(see your room number is 306)
• 11. Advocate-Defence Council ( he has principal role
in the conduct of cases. His main job is to defend the
accused by art of cross examination. He helps the
court when statement of the accused is recorded u/s
313 Cr.P.C. He will argue the case on the basis of facts
as well as legal provisions. He will conduct the
examination chief of defence witnesses, who will be
cross examined by counsel for the state/complainant)
• 12. District Legal Services Authority,(DLSA) is constituted
under the provisions of the legal services authority Act,
1987 for providing free legal aid to poor and needy
accused persons, who can not engage a lawyer. A panel of
lawyers is appointed by them for this purpose.
• 13.Law teachers and students ( can become part of legal
aid clinics in college as well as in court)
• 14. Amicus curiae, is known as friend of the court. ( he is
appointed by he court in order to help the court or to
defend an accused person in a particular case.
• 15. Juvenile/observation home (is an institution where
juveniles in conflict of law are kept during the pendency
of inquiry against them, under J.J. Act, 2015 they are not
sent to regular jail) Idea is their rehabilitation back in the
society.
• 16. Special homes ( children convicted under J. J.
Act,2015 are kept for long term rehabilitation)
• 17. Mahila Thana ( one mahila thana is established in
each district of UP) Thana, sector 39 Noida .
• All female police officers are posted at such police
stations. Their duties are besides nabbing criminals,
they take the role of marriage counsellors. They are
convincing warring couples from breaking up.
• 18. CAW cell (Crime against women) after receiving
any complaint from any women, CAW cell examines
the complaint, provides assistance in reconciliation,
instead of straightway registration of FIR/ filing a
complaint case in court.
 19. sureties (are equally important in the criminal justice
system, since they are responsible for production of the
accused in criminal courts on each and every date, filing
which they will have to face proceedings u/s 446 Cr.P.C., and
will have to deposit the amount of B.B. as penalty unless
remitted by the court.
20. NGO (they are helpful in filing writ petitions before
various courts. They can function as watch dogs of the
rights of accused persons. Eg., PUCL, Common Cause,)
21. Doctors (they are important witnesses, They prove
medico-legal reports and PMR etc. They give opinion
regarding cause of death, nature, duration of injuries etc.
22. Peon of court (he is responsible for calling the case in a
loud voice. He administers the oath to the witnesses)
 23. Nari Niketan ( is established with the aim to
provide the shelter to widowed, abandoned, destitute,
virgin mothers and other women persecuted from the
society. Primarily it is a shelter for women in
distress/pain. It is a government funded and
maintained homes.
24. complainant,
25. jailor/Suprintendent of Jail
26. guardians(in case of minor),
27. Interpreters,
28. Embassies,
29. Private detectives (not authorised under Cr.P.C.)
30. Dial 100, 1090, 1098,
31. Internet (online FIR)
32. Probation officer.
33. Court Commissioner
34.Media (though not in Cr.P.C.)
35. HRC (human rights commission)
36.Executor of death sentence (Zallad)
Stages of criminal proceedings

• A) Pre-trial stage
• B) Trial stage—Five types of the trial (SWWSS)
• C) Post trial---- Probation/Serving of sentence,
Closed and open jail, remission of sentence
 Pre trial stages
Pre-trial Procedure steps to ensure attendance of the accused
for trial

Pre-trial Procedure Arrest and Rights of the arrested person

(41)
Pre-trial Procedure Production of documents and things (91)

Pre-trial Procedure Search and seizure (93 to 103)

Pre-trial Procedure Investigation by Police (154 to 173)

Process to compel appearance of accused (Arrest)

• Accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty

beyond reasonable doubt. The concept of fair trial
also demands that trial should be conducted in the
presence of the accused person so that he may
defend himself, and if found guilty, he should be
available to receive the punishment awarded to him.
• Arrest and detention of accused before and during
trial is likely to cause direct or indirect obstructions in
preparation of his defence and thus may not be
conducive to fair trial. Hence provisions for issue of
summons, B.W., N.B.W.. Warrant u/s 82, 83,(or Bail)
are aimed at ensuring the presence of accused at his
trial.
• Warrant cases are comparatively serious as compared
to summons cases. In summons cases accused is less
likely to abscond/ disobey the summons (cf. 174 IPC)
than a warrant case.
• In summons cases, normally summon shall be issued
first and in a warrant case, summon or arrest warrant
is issued at the discretion of the court.(S. 204) But
warrant may be issued in lieu of, or in addition to
summons (87)
• Service of summons (62)- by police, personally on the
accused by tendering him one of the duplicates of the
summon. Accused to sign a receipt on the back of
other duplicate.
• Service of summons on adult male member residing
with him, if accused can not be found. (cf. female
5/15 cpc) section 64
• Service of summons by affixing one of the duplicate
of summons to some conspicuous part of the house
in which accused ordinarily resides.(65)
• Service of summon on govt. servant-through head of
office (66) HOD will cause the summon served and
return its duplicate to the court concerned.
• Service of summons outside local limits in different
district (summon cell)—through CJM/CMM of that
district (67) Serving officer to submit his affidavit
along with duplicate of summon duly served to the
court concerned.
Service of B.W. and N.B.W.
• Arrest means apprehension of a person by a legal authority
resulting in deprivation of his liberty.
• A) Arrest in pursuance of warrant issued by Magistrate/court
• B) Arrest without warrant (in cognizable cases) eg., 302/304B
• Warrant of arrest is a written order issued and signed/sealed
by Magistrate/court addressed to a police officer/any other
person commanding him to arrest the body of the accused
named in the warrant. But he must be produced before the
Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding the time of
journey from place of arrest to court. (FR u/a 22(2) COI) to see
the legality of arrest/grant of bail. (personal liberty FR is
involved)
• Warrant remains in force till its execution unless it is cancelled
by the court 70(2)
• B.W. is always endorsed for bail, that if such person
executes PB with one/ two sureties for his attendance
before the court at a specified date and time and
thereafter also until otherwise directed by the court.
Accused will be released if, he furnishes his P.B. and
bond of surety or sureties to the satisfaction of
arresting police officer.
• Endorsement shall state amount of PB and BB,
number of sureties, and date and time at which
accused is to attend court.
• If PB and BB are given, the same shall be forwarded
to the court.
• B.W. can be issued both in bailable and non-bailable
offences. If non-bailable offence is of technical
nature, court can issue B.W.
• Mode of execution of warrant: by police officer or by
another whose name is endorsed.(74)
• Validity—warrant can be executed at any place in
India (77)
• If accused is resident of another district, warrant shall
be sent to SP of that district for execution (78) He will
get it served and return the same along with accused
to the original court who had sent the warrant.
• After arrest what?– If the warrant was bailable, and
accused is ready to furnish his P.B. as well as B.B.,
accused shall be released with a direction to appear
before the court concerned on the date fixed. Bonds
shall be forwarded to the court concerned.
• If the warrant was N.B.W., arrested person shall be
produced before the CJM of that district where he
was arrested,(he may take bail) or before the court
who had issued N.B.W.(he may also take bail)
 Process to compel appearance of accused Contd…
Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C.,

• Conditions for Proclamation:

• 1. warrant was issued against accused
• 2. Accused has absconded
• 3. Or accused is concealing himself so that warrant
can not be executed
• …..court may publish a written proclamation against
the accused requiring him to appear in court at a
specified date, which shall not less than 30 days from
the date of publication.
• Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. how made?
• A) Publically read in some conspicuous place of the
town or village/mohalla, where accused resides
• B) shall be affixed in some conspicuous part of the
house of the accused in which he resides
• C) its copy shall be affixed to some conspicuous part
of the court house
• D) shall be published in a daily news paper circulating
in the place, where accused resides.
• …..Every such proclamation shall contain the details
of name of the court, crime number, sections of IPC,
name of police station and date for appearance in the
court.
Process to compel appearance of accused Contd…
Attachment of property of accused u/s 83 Cr.P.C.,
• The property, movable or immovable of accused
against whom warrant u/s 82 has been issued, can be
attached and sold u/s 83 in order to compel his
attendance in court.
• Conditions for attachment of property u/s 83:-
• A) proclamation u/s 82 was issued
• B) accused is about to dispose of whole or part of his
property or
• C) accused is about to remove the whole or any part
of his property from the local jurisdiction of the court.
• Warrant u/s 82 and 83 can be issued simultaneously
• If property ordered to be attached u/s 83 is debt or
movable property, its attachment can be made
• A) by seizure; or
• B) by appointment of receiver; or
• C) by prohibiting delivery of such movable property to
the accused; or
• D) by all or any two methods
• If property ordered to be attached u/s 83 is
immovable paying revenue to govt. (agriculture land),
it will be attached through collector of the district
where property is situated.
• If the property is situated in urban area, like land,
house or building attachment can be done---
• A) by taking possession ; or
• B) by appointment of receiver ; or
• C) by prohibiting payment of rent to the accused;
• D) by all or any two of such methods, as the court
thinks fit.
• If property is live stock or is of perishable nature, it
may be sold.
• Claims and objections can be filed against attachment
(84)
• Court can release the attached property if accused
appears in the court.
• Once the accused appears, the purpose of issuing
summon/B.W./N.B.W./proclamation u/s 82 and
attachment of property u/s 83 Cr. P.C. is achieved.
Lecture 4- Bail
• The idea behind the arrest and detention of the
accused persons is to secure his attendance at the
time of trial and to ensure that if he is found guilty he
is available to receive the sentence. If his presence
can be procured before the court otherwise than by
arrest and detention then the concept of personal
liberty (A.21) demands that the person should be
released on bail.
• Word ‘Bail’ is nowhere defined in the Cr.P.C. Bail is to
procure the release of a person from legal custody with an
undertaking that he shall appear at the time and place
designated and submit himself to the jurisdiction and
judgment of the court.
• When a person is accused of a serious crime and is
likely to be convicted and punished for such a crime and
chances are that he will abscond or jump bail; if such
person is arrested, it is not desirable to grant him bail and
restore his liberty. Similarly, if the arrested person, if
released on bail, is likely to temper with the prosecution
witnesses and obstruct in the conduct of the trial, or is
likely to commit more offences during the period of his
release on bail, it would be improper to release such
person on bail. On the other hand, where there are no
such risks involved, the person should be released on bail.
• “The bail and not the jail” should be the rule because
accused is presumed to be innocent unless and until
proved guilty hence it would be unjust to keep him in
jail before his guilt is proved. The law of bail, truly
speaking, has to balance out between individual
liberty of the accused and the liberty of the society, in
the sense of its protection.
• The Cr.P.C. has classified all offences into bailable
and non-bailable, as per schedule attached to it. An
analysis of the schedule shows that all serious
offences, i.e., offences punishable with imprisonment
for three years or more have been classified as non-
bailable though there are exceptions to this rule. (Part
IInd of schedule)
• If a person accused of bailable offence is arrested or
detained without warrant, he has the right to be
released on bail but if the offence is non-bailable then
it does not mean that the person accused of such
offence shall not to be released on bail. In such cases
bail is not a matter of right but a matter of discretion
only.
• Bail in Bailable offence: - S.436 Cr.P.C. says that when any
person who has committed a bailable offence is arrested
or detained without warrant by the police or appears or is
brought before a court, such a person shall be released on
bail. This bail may be granted by the police officer at the
police station or by the Magistrate in the court. Such
person is generally required to produce bail bond of 2
sureties to the satisfaction of police officer or the court,
but such a person may be released on his executing a
bond without sureties also. Police or the court has no
option but to grant the bail in bailable offence. It may be
recalled that u/s 50 (2) it is mandatory for a police officer
to inform the accused of his right of bail as soon as he is
arrested. If the accused person is ready to give bail, the
police or court is bound to release him.
• S.436 (2) makes it clear a provision to the effect that
a person who absconds or has broken the condition
of his bail bond when he was released on bail in
bailable cases on a previous occasion, he shall not be
entitled to bail when brought to the court on any
subsequent date even though the offence is bailable.
Meaning thereby, that the court may refuse to release
him on bail if he has failed to comply with the
conditions of the bail-bond as regards the time and
place of attendance. But if the person released on bail
in bailable offence indulges in acts which are against
the concept of fair trial, the High Court or Court of
Session may cancel his bail and commit him to
custody (S.439 (2).
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar
• Bail when accused is in jail for a period up to half of the
maximum period of imprisonment specified for that
offence under law.
• 436-A Maximum period for which an under trial prisoner
can be detained?
• Where an accused has during investigation, inquiry or trial
(I.I.T.) undergone detention for a period extending up to
one-half of the maximum punishment specified for the
offence, he shall be released on his P.B. with or without
sureties. (excluding offences in which death penalty is one
of the punishment) Court has discretion to order his
continued detention longer than one-half of the said
period or release him on bail instead of P.B. with or
without sureties.
• Release of accused if he has undergone maximum
sentence fixed by law.
• No accused shall be detained during IIT for more than
the maximum period of imprisonment provided for
the said offence.
• Explanation:- In computing the period of detention
u/s 436-A, for granting bail, the period of detention
passed in jail due to delay in proceedings caused by
the accused shall be excluded.
• Whether 436-A is applicable to bailable or non-
bailable offences?
• S. 436-A was added by Cr.P.C.,AA, 2005, w.e.f.,
23-6-2006.
 Remand and Bail
• Whenever an accused person is arrested and
detained by the police during investigation and it
appears that the investigation cannot be completed
within 24 hours as fixed by S. 57, and there are
grounds for believing that accusation or information is
well founded, the accused person has to be
forwarded to the nearest judicial Magistrate for
remand along with copies of C.D. and G.D. (S.167).
The Magistrate to whom the accused was so
forwarded may from time to time authorized the
detention of the accused either in police custody or
in judicial custody (remand).
• Magistrate of II class can not grant Police custody
remand, unless authorized by the High Court.
• Maximum police remand of first 15 days can be granted.
If further detention of the accused is necessary for the
purpose of investigation, the police may ask for further
remand and the Magistrate may grant further judicial
remand for a period of maximum 15 days again but the
total period of detention shall not exceed
• (i) 90 days, if the offence is punishable with death or L.I.
or for a term not less than 10 years
• (ii) 60 days in offences punishable with a term of less than
10 years
• On the expiry of this period of 90/ 60 days the accused
persons shall be released on bail, if he is prepared to
furnish bail. This bail is equivalent to bail under chapter
33 of Cr.P.C. ( default bail)
• Executive Magistrate is also empowered to grant remand
for 7 days where Judicial Magistrate is not available.
Executive Magistrate/MM should have been conferred
power to grant remand by the High Court. After 7 days,
accused will be produced before judicial Magistrate from
the jail. Judicial Magistrate can authorize further
detention of the accused up to a total period of 90/60
days.
• Order of stopping investigation beyond six months in
Summons cases triable by Magistrate :- in summons
cases, if the investigation is not completed in six months
from the date of arrest of accused, the Magistrate shall
make an order stopping further investigation into offence,
unless I.O. satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons
and in the interest of justice, continuation of investigation
beyond six months is necessary.
• Sessions judge can reverse above order in his revision
jurisdiction.
• S.437 (2) also gives a right of bail to the accused
where there are no reasonable grounds to believe
that the accused was involved in the commission of a
non-cognizable/non-bailable offence, the accused
shall be released on bail.
• S.437 (6) also gives to the accused person a right
of bail if the trial by a Magistrate is not concluded
within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for
taking evidence in the case. Provided that the accused
person was in custody during the whole of the said
period.
 Bail in Non-Bailable Offences
• S.437 Cr.P.C. provides for bail at the discretion of
the court in non-bailable offences. In non-bailable
offences, bail can only be granted at the discretion of
the court. This discretion to grant or not to grant the
bail depends upon the gravity of the crime, the
likelihood of absconding the accused etc. This
discretion is not arbitrary but judicial.
• The judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail has
to be applied keeping in mind the enormity of the
charge, nature of accusation, severity of punishment,
nature of evidence, danger of witnesses being
tampered with, opportunity of the applicant for
preparation of his defence, risk of his death, age and
sex. The previous conviction and criminal record of
the accused person and the likelihood of the
repetition of the offence by the accused person if
released on bail, are also be taken into account while
deciding the question of bail.
• Power of Magistrate to grant bail in non-bailable
offences:- when any person accused of, or suspected
of commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested
or detained without warrant by officer-in-charge of
police station or appears or is brought before a court
(other than High Court or court of sessions), he may be
released on bail at the discretion of the court.
Restriction No. 1 :- Accused shall not be released on
bail, if there there appears reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused has been guilty of an offence
punishable with death or L.I.
Restriction No. 2 :- Accused shall not be so released on
bail, if such offence is a cognizable one and accused has
been previously convicted of an offence punishable
with death/L.I./seven years or more.
• Restriction No. 3 :- Accused shall not be so released
on bail, if such offence is a cognizable one and
accused has been previously convicted on two or
more occasions of a cognizable offence punishable
with imprisonment from 3 to 7 years.
• Exception No 1 :- In spite of above 3 restrictions Court
may release such accused on bail if such person is
under age of 16 years or is a woman or a sick or
infirm person.
• Exception No 2 :- Court has discretion to grant bail to
accused person in spite of criminal history of
accused, if court is satisfied that it is just and proper
so to do for any special reason in the interest of
justice.
• A specific negative direction is given by law u/s 437
(1) third proviso in the matter of bail. The mere fact
that an accused person may be required for being
identified by witness during investigation shall not be
sufficient ground for refusing to grant bail if he is
otherwise entitled to be released on bail.
• Bail u/s 437 (2)- If at any stage of IIT, it appears to the
court that there are not reasonable grounds for
believing that accused has committed non-bailable
offence, but there are sufficient grounds for further
inquiry into his guilt, he can be released on bail.
• Bail provisions were made more stringent by the
Amendment Act of 1980 in Cr.P.C. Accused shall not
be released on bail if there appears reasonable
grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an
offence punishable with death or life imprisonment
(S.437 (1) (i). S.437 (1) was substituted by 1980
Amendment Act and it was provided that the accused
shall not be released on bail if his offence is
cognizable one and he had been previously convicted
of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment
for life or for a term of 7 years or more. He shall also
be not released on bail if he had been previously
convicted on two or more occasions of a cognizable
offence punishable with imprisonment for three years
or more but not less than 7 years (Amendment Act,
2005).
• The police officer or the court releasing any person on bail
in case of non-bailable offence has to record in writing his
reasons or special reasons for doing so (S.437 (4).
• S.437 (1) clearly says that the Magistrate or Police
officer in cases of offences punishable with death or
imprisonment for life shall not grant bail. However, the
court may direct that any person under age of 16 years or
any woman or any sick or infirm person accused of any
such offence be released on bail (First proviso of S.437 (1).
Hence, except in cases of children, woman and sick or
infirm person, the discretion to grant bail has been taken
away from the Magistrate and police officer in cases of
non-bailable offences punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. The basis of this rule is that the
graver the offences greater will be the chances of
absconding; hence, there will be no bail. However, High
Court or Court of Sessions may grant bail even in offence
punishable with death or life imprisonment.
• Bail with conditions
• Bail may also be granted subject to certain
conditions. This is a balance between grant of bail
and not granting it. S.437 (3) provides that when a
person is accused or suspected of the commission of
an offence punishable with imprisonment which may
extend upto 7 years or more or of an offence under
chapter VI (offences against the state), chapter XVI
(offences against human body) or chapter XVII
(offences against property) of I.P.C. or abetment or
conspiracy or attempt to commit any such offence, is
released on bail u/s 437 (1) the Court shall impose
following conditions: -
 1. that such person shall attend the court in accordance
with the conditions of the bond executed; or
2. that such person shall not commit an offence similar to
the offence of which he is accused, or suspected; or
3. that such person shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him
from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence,
and may also impose, in the interest of justice, such
other conditions like surrender of passport, not leaving the
country without permission of the court,as it considers
necessary.
• This power to impose conditions has been given only
to the court and not to police officers. Any such bail
granted u/s 437(1), (2), may be cancelled and the
person be arrested and committed to the custody
(S.437 (5) and (S.439 (2). This power of cancellation is
given exclusively to the court and not to police
officers.
• S.439 Cr.P.C. gives very powers and discretion to
the High Court and Court of Sessions in the matter of
granting bail. Their discretion u/s 439 is not restricted
by the restriction contained in S. 437. S.439 (1) says
that the High Court or a Court of Sessions may release
a person on bail even if the offence is of the nature
specified in S.437 (3) and may impose any condition
which they think necessary.
•
Bail on the ground of delay in trial
• In a case triable by Magistrate, if the trial of a non-
bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty
days from the first date fixed for taking prosecution
evidence, and the accused is through out in jail during
whole of the said period, he shall be released on bail,
unless for the reasons, to be recorded, the Magistrate
otherwise directs.
• Bail at the conclusion of the trial:- At any time after
conclusion of the trial of a person accused of non-bailable
offence, and before delivery of judgment, court is of the
opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the accused is not guilty of such offence, accused
shall be released on executing his personal bond without
sureties for his appearance to hear the delivery of
judgment.
 Bail to require accused to appear before next
appellate court :- Section 437-A added by Cr.P.C., AA
2008 w.e.f., 31-12-2009.
• Before conclusion of the trial and before disposal of
appeal, the trial court or the appellate court as the
case may be, shall require the accused to execute bail
bonds with sureties, to appear before higher court as
and when such court issues notice in respect of any
appeal or petition filed against the judgment of the
respective court and such bail bonds shall remain in
force for six months.
• If accused fails to appear before higher court, the
bond will stand forfeited and procedure u/s 446
Cr.P.C., will apply.
 Cancellation of bail
The Magistrate who granted bail cannot
cancel bail in bailable offences u/s 436. He can
refuse bail if on any subsequent occasion in the
same case accused is brought before him on his
failure to comply with the conditions of the bail
bond as regard time and place of attendance
(S.89). But no express powers of cancellation like
S.437 (5) have been given u/s 436. According to
S.437 (5), any court, which has released a person
on bail, may, if it considers necessary to do so,
direct that such person be arrested and commit
him to custody after cancellation of his bail.
 This power to cancel bail has been given to the
court and not to the police officers. Secondly, the court,
which has granted the bail, can alone cancel it or higher
court can cancel it. A court of Magistrate cannot cancel
the bail granted by a police officer. For cancellation of
bail in such a situation, it is only the High Court or
Court of Sessions u/s 439, who is empowered to cancel
the bail.
• S.437 (5) gives power and discretion to cancel the bail. It
does not lay down any guidelines as to when and how the
discretion is to be utilized. Bail can be cancelled if the
accused on bail commits the same offence for which he is
being tried or if the accused forcibly prevents the search
of place under his control or if he tampers with
prosecution witnesses or if he runs away to a foreign
country or absconds.
• The HC and Court of Sessions may direct u/s 439 (2)
that any person who has been released on bail, his bail be
cancelled and he be arrested and committed to custody.
These powers of cancellation given to these higher courts
are quite wide. Whether the offence was bailable or non-
bailable is immaterial; whether police officer or a court
granted the bail is also immaterial.
*-*-*-*
Special powers of High Court and Court of sessions
regarding bail (Section 439 Cr.P.C.,)
• High Court or court of sessions may direct that any
person accused of any offence who is in custody, be
released on bail after hearing the counsel for accused
and public prosecutor.
• Such a court can impose conditions while releasing
him on bail if the offence is of the nature specified in
S. 437(3).
• Cancellation of Bail:- Such a court can cancel the bail
of any accused person who has been granted bail
under chapter 33
•xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Anticipatory Bail
• S.438 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court and Court of
Sessions to issue direction for grant of bail to the person
apprehending arrest. AB is a bail in anticipation of being
arrested. S.438 Cr.P.C. is omitted in U.P. S.438 was not
present in the old Cr. P.C. of 1898. It was introduced on the
recommendations of 41st Law Commission Report. The
necessity to grant AB arose mainly because sometimes
influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases
for the purpose of disgracing and harassing them by
keeping them in jail for some days. On the other hand,
when a person accused of an offence is not likely to
abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail,
there seems no justification to require him first to go into
jail and then apply for bail. For such category of persons
S.438 was introduced in 1973 in the new Cr.P.C.
Meaning of Confession

According to Sir James Stephen “An admission made at any time by a person
charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed a crime”.

Though it an undiscovered fact that the term ‘confession’ is nowhere defined or

expressed in the Indian Evidence Act, but the inference explained under the
definition of admission in Section 17 of Indian evidence Act also applies to
confession in the same manner. Section 17 expressly provides that any statement
whether oral or in the form documentary which put forward for the consideration of
any conclusion to the fact in issue or to the relevant facts.

Now after understanding the discovery of both the term it is very much clear that
when is put forward for the consideration of any inference to the fact in issue or to
the relevant facts in the civil proceeding then such consideration of statements is
known as confession. Thus, the confession is something which is made by the
person who is charged with any criminal offences and such statements conferred by
him shall be suggesting a conclusion as to any fact in issue or as to relevant facts.
The statements may infer any reasoning for concluding or suggesting that he is guilty
of a crime. We may also define the confession in other words that the admission by
the accused in the criminal proceedings is a confession.

In Pakala Narayan Swami V. Emperor, Lord Atkin observed that “A confession

must either be admitted in the context of any offence or in relation with any
substantial facts which inaugurate the offence with criminal proceedings. And an
admission of serious wrongdoing, even conclusively incriminating fact is not itself a
confession”.

In, Palvinder Kaur V. State of Punjab the Supreme Court uplifted the Privy Council
decision in Pakala Narayan Swami case and substantiated their arguments over two
reasoning- Firstly, the definition of confession only comes to exist when the
statements conferring the admission that he is either guilty of any offence or the
admission is probating all the facts which constitute the offence. Secondly, when the
statement has different qualities and contains such a mixture of confessional
statements which conclude to the acquittal of the person making the confession,
then such statements cannot be considered as a confession.

In Nishi Kant Jha v State of Bihar, the Supreme Court highlighted that there is no
wrong on relying some part of statements confessed by the accused and neglecting
the other part, the court has traced out this concept from English Law and when
court in its capacity understood that it has enough evidence to neglect the
exculpatory part of the confession, then it may rely on the inculpatory part such
confession.

Conclusively we can understand that the expression of confession means any

statements made by an accused which proves his guilt. And there is just a thin line
difference between the two terminologies of the Indian Evidence Act that admission
is no other different term than admission as a confession only ends up in admission
of guilt by the accused. So a person accused of any offence makes any statement
against him which may prove his guilt, is called confession or confessional
statement. It is observed that confessions are upgrades of admission which makes it
special, thus, it is popularly administered that “All Confessions are admissions, but
not all Admissions are confessions.”

In Baburao Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra the court while deciding the case
explained the principle that “the Court before ascertaining the facts for the purpose of
deciding the facts in issues of the case, should begin ascertaining the case facts with
all other evidences possible related to the case and then only it shall turn to the
approach of confession by the accused in order to administer complete justice to the
conclusion of guilt of the accused.

Types of Confession and process of recording confession

A confession may be of the different type according to the matter of the cases.
Broadly confession is differentiated into two different statuses like- when the
confession by the means of statements is given itself in the court of law then such
confession will be considered as judicial confession, whereas, when the confession
by the way of statements is produced at any place other than court then such
confession will lead towards extrajudicial confession. The different sets of confession
do not have the same evidentiary values as of others and hence their values
degrade and upgrade by the circumstance that how what and where these
confessions are made. The exceptional feature of confession is that a conversation
to himself also leads toward a confession and this feature was lighted in the case of
Sahoo v. the State of U.P. where the accused has murdered his son’s newly wedded
wife as he usually has serious arguments with her, and when the accused killed
daughter-in-law it was seen and heard by many people living there that he was
uttering words while stating that “I finished her and now I am free from any daily
quarrels”. The court observed in this case that the statement or the self conversation
made by the accused shall be considered as a confession to prove his guilt and such
confession should be recognised as a relevant in evidence in administering justice,
and just being in the case that the statements are not communicated to any other
person, other than him does not dilutes the relevancy of a confession. Therefore
confession made to himself is also quality evidence which will be considered as
relevant evidence in a court of law.

Formal Confession

Formal confession is also known as Judicial Confession and those statements which
are made before an office of magistrate or in the court of law during any criminal
proceedings are known as formal or judicial confession. A judicial confession not
much other than a “plea of guilty” as per the provision explained under Article 20(3) if
Indian Constitution otherwise any confession made against the person who is
making the confession will have no evidentiary value and he cannot be concluded
guilty of any offence on the behalf of such confession.

Judicial confessions should not be mixed up with informal confession though being a
part of the same branch but both have different values and relevancy in determining
the accused’s guilt. There may be some arguments stating that a conviction can be
arranged even on the basis of an extra-judicial confession but on the other hand we
must also see that there is no reason in neglecting the arrangement of conviction
solely based on the judicial confession. So a confession made by the accused where
his statements are leading himself to the bar is probative evidence to prove his guilt
but all such confession shall be made in the presence of a magistrate or in a court of
law. On the other side the court must take care of all the necessary steps to check if
the confession made by the accused which may prove his guilt must be voluntary
and true, so that no innocent can be charged for wrongful act of others as provided
in Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution which talks about ‘self incrimination’.

Informal Confession

Informal confession is also known as extrajudicial confession and those statements

which are made at any place other than the place where there is an absence of
magistrate or at any place other than the court is considered as an extra-judicial
confession. It is not necessary that the statements should have been addressed to
any definite individual. Just like in the principle of judicial confession, informal
confession can also be made in the form of prayer, the informal confession is in any
private room or a self conversation. But the court has to take care that no matter
judicial or extrajudicial confession, the confession by the accused must be consistent
with Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution which say ‘No one should be compelled to
give evidence against himself’ that means the confession should be on the will of the
confessor and must be true, then only a person can be charged for any criminal
offence.
A person expressing the guilt of the offence he committed to any private person like
any friend or his related persons than such commission of a crime will cover the
aspects of extrajudicial confession. Though both judicial and extrajudicial confession
can be accepted in the court but both have different evidentiary value or different
probative value so as to establish any fact. Which means a conviction will not solely
be based on the confession rather the court will test the extrajudicial confession to
make any person guilty of any offence committed by him. What makes the
extra-judicial confession different from judicial confession is that extrajudicial
confession can be made to any private person which also includes a judicial officer in
his private capacity. The extra-judicial confession in some cases also restricts a
magistrate to record confession which he is not empowered under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C.

In, State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh the Supreme Court in this case held that an
extra-judicial confession’s value only increases when it is clearly consistent and
convincing to the conclusion of the case otherwise the accused cannot be held liable
for the conviction solely on the basis of the confession made by him.

In, Balwinder Singh v. State the Supreme Court has mentioned some guidelines in
the form of deciding the case that in the case of extrajudicial confession it the court
must check for the credibility of the person making the confession and all of his
statements shall be tested by the court to conclude whether the person who made
the confession is trustworthy or not, otherwise a person who is not so trustworthy
then his statements cannot be used for making any inference to prove the guilt of the
accused.

In, Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu the Supreme Court while deciding the case
has made few principles in the form of guidelines where the court has to check such
principles before admitting the confession of the accused, The following principles
mentioned by the Supreme Court are:

● Extrajudicial confessions are generally a very weak kind of evidence by itself

and the court must examine such statements efficiently.
● Extrajudicial confession should be made by the person’s own will and such
statements must be true.
● The evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession instantly increases when it is
supported by other such evidence.
● The statements of the confessor must prove his guilt like any other fact in
issue is proven in the judicial proceedings.

Retracted confession
The English meaning of retraction is ‘the action of drawing back something’
retraction confession is a type of confession which is previously voluntarily made by
the confessor but afterwards it is revoked or retracted by the same confessor.
Retracted confession can be utilised against the person who is confessing some
retracted statements if it is substantiated by another independent and corroborative
evidence.

In Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court, in this case, lifted that a
retracted confession has enough values to form any other legal grounds to establish
any conviction only if the Court satisfies that it was true and was on someone’s own
will. But the Court has to testify that the conviction cannot be solely be made on such
confession until and unless they are corroborated.

Confession by co-accused: When there are more than one accused in a case and
they are jointly prosecuted for the same offence, and when any of them confesses
any statements against himself in such a way that he may be proved guilty of that
offence then the court on such believes may prosecute other accused also who are
jointly persecuted in the same offence.

Illustration- If three persons Aman, Vinod and Vijay are charged jointly for the same
offence and they are prosecuted for the murder of Harsh. And during the judicial
proceedings, Aman gives confessions that he along with Vinod and Vijay killed
Harsh and if the statements of the Aman are recognised as true statements then the
court may use the confession of Aman against all the accused and can prove the
guilt of Vinod and Vijay also. Evidentiary value of different types of confessions

Judicial confession

Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act give the evidentiary value to the judicial
confession and expresses that a confession made in the presence of magistrate or in
the court which is recorded by the magistrate as prescribed by the law then such
confession shall be presumed to be true and genuine confession and the accused
can be tried with the offence. Section 164 of CrPC empowers magistrate to record
confession so it is not necessary that which magistrate recorded the confession
unless he is restricted to record the confession. Hence, for raising the presumption
the identity of the accused must be clear and proved in the confession to persecute
him for the guilt of the offence he committed.

Extra-judicial confession

Though extra-judicial confession don’t have much evidentiary value as compared to

judicial confession but in the case of a written confession the writing of the accused
itself is one of the best evidence available to the court to charge the accused of the
offence. And if the confession is not available in the form of written statements then
the court may test the oral confession of the accused which was made to any other
person. On the court’s discretion and satisfaction, the statements of the accused to
any other person may be admissible and thereafter the accused may be prosecuted
for the offence on which he is charged.

Retracted confession

Retracted confession has circumstantial evidentiary that the cognizance of any

offence the police investigate the case on the basis of their investigation they
examine the witnesses, fact in issues, accused and many more things. If in the
opinion of investigation, police found that the accused is guilty of a particular offence
then they submit a report to the concerned magistrate or the court. During the court
proceeding, the magistrate has to take pieces of evidence and examines the
accused and if on the behalf of investigation report the courts find someone guilty of
any particular offence then the court shall direct the accused to confess the
statements again. When the trial begins the magistrate has to ask the accused that if
he is guilty of an offence or not and if the accused don’t plead guilty then he may
retract all the confession made to the police during the police investigation and must
substantiate his retracted confession. So the value of retracted evidence has
circumstantial evidentiary value, therefore, the court has to make any inference very
cautiously.

Confession by co-accused

The Supreme Court in the case of Pancho v. State of Haryana , held that the
confessions made by the co-accused do not have much evidentiary value and they
cannot be considered as a substantive piece of evidence. Therefore the confession
made by the co-accused can only be used to corroborate the conclusion drawn out
by other probative evidence.

When is a confession irrelevant?

Sections 24, 25, 26 and relevant part of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
deals with condition that when can confession be irrelevant.

Section 24 of the same Act describes different instances when a confession on the
basis of such instances becomes irrelevant. Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act
provides that a confession made by a person who is accused of some offence is
irrelevant if such confession comes out of any inducement, threat or promise and
such instances have proceeded from a person in authority like police, magistrate,
court etc., the other condition of this section is that inducement, threat or promise
should be in reference to charge of any offence and all such inducements, threat or
promise should give benefit of temporal nature.

For better understanding, we may divide the complete structure into 4 different
essentials that are:

● The confession must be out of inducement, threat or promise, inducement,

etc.
● Such confession should proceed from a person in authority.
● It should relate to the charge in question.
● It should have the benefit of temporal nature or disadvantage.

Thus, when these conditions are fulfilled then the confession becomes irrelevant.

Confession to Police, Police Custody and effect of police presence

The essence of commission can be found in different statutes but Section 24 to 30 of

Evidence Act and section 162 to 164 of CrPC specifically deals with a confession.

Section 25 provides that “No statements made to a Police Officer shall be

considered as a confession for the purpose of proving that confession against that
person who is accused to the case”. The terms explained under Section 25 of this
Act has vital importance which makes sure that any confession made by the accused
to the police officer under any circumstances until provided, is totally not admissible
as evidence in a court of law against the accused to prove his guilt.

Section 26 prohibits the judicial bodies to prove the guilt of accused by his
confession which is made to police in police custody. Section 26 imposes a partial
ban on provisions stated in Section 25 that confession made to the police officer in
police custody may be admissible if the confession recorded in the immediate
presence of a magistrate.

Confession in further discovery of facts

Section 27 lift the concept of the relevance of information received from the accused
by irrelevant confess made to police or in police custody which may help in further
discovery of facts of the cases. Section 27 provides that whenever a fact is forcefully
discovered in the course of receiving information from accused during a police
investigation or in the police custody and whenever such information leads to the
discovery of other relevant facts they may be distinctly be proved.
In Pandu Rang Kallu Patil v. State of Maharashtra, while deciding the case stated
that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was enacted as to lift and to remove the
ban provided in section 25 and 26 of the Act in such a way that- Section 25 and 26,
absolutely bans the admission of any confession made to the police or in police
custody but the objects of Section 27 provides the admission of statements made by
an accused even to the Police Officer and the objective explained by the Supreme
Court was that such confession may help in further discovery of facts which may
help the court to prove other facts related to the case.
PUBLIC PROSECUTORS

Introduction

A Public Prosecutor is considered as the agent of the state to represent the interest
of common people in the criminal justice system. The prosecution of the accused is
the duty of the state but not individually the duty of the aggrieved party. They are
appointed in almost all countries. The Public Prosecutor is defined in Section 24 of
Cr.P.C. They serve as the basic principle of Rule of Law i.e. auld alteram partem (no
person shall be condemned unheard).

Meaning

Section 2(u) of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines Public Prosecutor.

“A person who is appointed under Section 24 of CrPC and it also includes any
person who is acting under the directions of Public Prosecutor.”

In the case of Babu vs State of Kerala,

The Court observed that Public Prosecutors are ministers of justice who is duty
bound to assist the judge in the administration of justice.

Functions

The functions of the Public Prosecutor differ according to their designation.

Public Prosecutor- supervise the function exercised by the Additional Public

Prosecutor in Session Court and High Court.

Chief Prosecutor- supervise the functions exercised by Assistant Public Prosecutor

in Metropolitan Magistrate Court.

Additional Prosecutor- conduct criminal proceedings in the Session Court.

Assistant Public Prosecutor- they examine the charge sheet prepared by agencies
and submit the acquittal or discharge. They also are responsible for the evaluation of
evidence and filing revisions petitions. They also conduct the criminal proceedings in
the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate.

Director of Prosecution- it is the head office. They exercise the overall control and
supervision of officers of Directorate. They also look after the Account Branches.
The objective of establishing a Directorate of Public Prosecutors is to supervise and
scrutinise the functions relating to various prosecution agencies at Assistant Session
level and Session level except at High Court.

Reasons for the Appointment of Public Prosecutor

Whenever any crime is committed against a group or individual, it is assumed that it
has been committed against society. It is the duty of the state to provide justice to
any group of society or person who is affected by the crime. In India, it is necessary
that the criminal justice system should function within the limits of the Indian
Constitution, which means that it is necessary for the Public Prosecutor to act in
accordance with the principles of:

● Equality before law

● Protection against double jeopardy
● Protection against self-incrimination
● Protection against ex-post law
● Right to life and personal liberty except procedure established by law
● Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
● Arrest and detention must be in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C.
● Equal protection of laws
● Speedy trial
● Prohibition of discrimination
● Right of accused to remain silent

Role of Public Prosecutors

It is divided into two parts:

● In investigating process
● During the trial

Role of the Public Prosecutor in the investigating process

● To make an appearance in the Court and obtain an arrest warrant

● To obtain search warrants for conducting a search in specified premises
● To obtain police custody remand for interrogation (including custodial
interrogation) of the accused
● To initiate a proceeding for the declaration of the non-traceable offender as
the proclaimed offender
● To record the evidence of accused in the police report regarding the
advisability of the prosecutions
Role of Public Prosecutors at the time of trial

Sentencing- when the accused is proven guilty, then the defence counsel and the
Public Prosecutor further argue to decide the quantum of punishment. At this stage,
the Public Prosecutor may argue for the adequate punishment keeping in mind the
facts, circumstances of case and gravity of the offence. It helps the judge to arrive at
a judicious decision.

To conduct a speedy trial- Right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right and it is

impliedly given in Article 21 of Constitution of India which states “Right to life and
Personal Liberty”. The prosecutors have a responsibility to call all the witnesses
whose evidence is essential to decide the case. To cross-examine the witness and
to see that no witness if left unexamined. To produce all the necessary documents.

Other Important Roles

The Public Prosecutor cannot aggravate the facts of the case or deny to examine the
witness whose evidence may weaken the case. The main aim must be to discover
the truth.

He should not defend the accused. It is against the fair play of administration of
justice or against the legal profession.

He represents the State, not police. He is an Officer of State and is appointed by

State Government. He is not a part of any investigating agencies but an independent
authority. He is charged with statutory duties.

Superintendent of; police or District Magistrate cannot compel to the Public

Prosecutor to withdraw the case.

If there is an issue which is raised by defence counsel and failed, it should be

brought out in the notice of the court by Public Prosecutor.

To ensure that justice is done.

Provision Under Cr.P.C

Hierarchy of Public Prosecutor according to Section 24:

The Public Prosecutor appointed by Central Government

The Public Prosecutor appointed by State Government

Additional Public Prosecutor appointed by State Government.

Special Public Prosecutor appointed by Central Government

Special Public Prosecutor appointed by State Government.

Section 24 of Cr.P.C talks about the appointment of Public Prosecutors in the

District Court and High Court by the state government and central government
respectively.

Sub-section 3 states that the Public Prosecutor needs to be appointed for each
district and may also appoint Additional Public Prosecutor.

Subsection 4 states that the District Magistrate in consultation with Session judge
needs to prepare a panel of names which is considered as fit for such an
appointment.

Subsection 5 states that the person can’t be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or

Additional Public Prosecutor by the State Government in a district unless his names
are on the panel prepared under subsection 4.

Subsection 6 explains that in a case where a state has a local cadre of prosecuting
officers, but there is no suitable person in such cadre for an appointment the
appointment must be made from the panel prepared under subsection 4.

Subsection 7 states that person can be appointed as Public Prosecutor only after
he has been practised as an advocate for the minimum period of 7 years.

Section 25 of Cr.P.C states that the Assistant Public Prosecutors is appointed in

the district for the purpose of conducting prosecution in Magistrate Court. The court
may appoint one or more Assistant Public Prosecutors for the purpose of conducting
a case.

If there are no Assistant Public Prosecutors then District Magistrate may appoint any
other person to act as the Assistant Public Prosecutors.

Section 321 permits the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor to

withdraw from the case or prosecution with the permission of the court at any time
before the judgement is pronounced. The power of the prosecutor is derived from the
statute itself and they must act in the interest of the administration of justice.
CASE LAWS

In the case of Vineet Narain vs Union of India,

Facts– the offence involves high political dignitaries. CBI failed to investigate
properly.

The court stated that there are no limitations or restrictions as to launching of

prosecutor or initiation of investigations.

In the case of Jitendra Kumar @Ajju vs State (NCT OF Delhi)

The High Court of Delhi stated that “the Public Prosecutor acts on the behalf of the
state. They are the ministers of justice who play a pivot role in the administration of
criminal justice”.

In the case of Zahira Habibullah vs State of Gujarat,

This case is known as “Best Bakery Case”.

Facts– burning down of construction in the city of Vadodara results in the death of
14 persons This matter came up before the Supreme Court for consideration.

The Supreme Court stated the “Public Prosecutors acted more as the defence rather
than focusing on presenting the truth before Court”.

In the case of Thakur Ram vs State of Bihar,

The reason behind the establishment of the office of Public Prosecutor is that no
private person can use the legal apparatus to wreak private vengeance anyone.

In the case of Tikam Singh vs State & Ors,

There is no dispute related to the office of the Public Prosecutor but there is a public
element attached to it. He acts as the representative of the state but not a
complainant. The role of the Public Prosecutor is distinguished from the role of
private counsel.

In the case of Sandeep Kumar Bafna vs State of Maharashtra & Anr,

The court stated that “a Public Prosecutor is not expected to show a thirst to reach
the case in the conviction of the accused somehow or other irrespective of the facts
of the case. The attitude of the Public Prosecutor must be fair towards the
investigating agencies and as well as towards the accused.”

In the case of Radheyshyam vs State of M.P & Ors,

The court stated that a special Public Prosecutor can be appointed when the
administration of justice is required. They cannot appoint only on the request of the
complainant. His remuneration is paid by the state because if it will be paid by the
private party, then his ability or capacity to perform his role as a Public Prosecutor
will be endangered. The government cannot appoint Special Public Prosecutor on
such terms, directing him to receive his remuneration from any private individual.

In the case of Kunja Subidhi and Anr vs Emperor,

The duty of the Public Prosecutor is to place before the court all the relevant
evidence whether it is in favour or against the accused and to leave upon the court to
decide the matter.

Recent illustrations

In the year 2018, The Government of Delhi appointed senior lawyers, Rebecca
Mammen John and Vishal Goshen as special Public Prosecutors in the murder case
of Ankit Saxena Murder Case for the purpose of the rial.

In the year 2019, Arvind Kejriwal ordered for the appointment of a special Public
Prosecutor in the Soumya Vishwanath’s case.

Present scenario India

There is no uniformity in the structure of the public prosecution in India. There is no

boundary created between the investigating agency and the prosecution in a number
of states. This affects the impartiality of Public Prosecutor since police control the
prosecutions. When the prosecution is headed by a senior police officer, the
boundary collapses completely.

Although the Law Commission in the year 1958 suggested the establishment of
Directorate of prosecution with its own cadre, such a recommendation was not
accepted in Cr.P.C. Some states have Directorate of Prosecution while others do
not.
Suggestions

Encouraging more lawyers to become Public Prosecutors.

Increasing the salary structure of the Public Prosecutor so that it can act as a
reinforcement to more people.

Limit the experience required to 3 years instead of 7 years.

To establish a national institute to impart proper training upon the aspiring

candidates.

Making compulsory for all the states to create its own Directorate of Prosecutions.

Conclusion

A Public Prosecutor is an officer of the court helping in the administration of justice. It

is clear from the fact that the main duty of the Public Prosecutor is to help the court
in finding the facts of the case. The Public Prosecutor must be impartial, fair and
honest. He must act on the directions of the judge. He should not believe in the
conviction of accused by hook or crook. The guiding principles of any public
prosecution must be equity, justice and good conscience.
ARREST

INTRODUCTION

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down the procedural aspects of procedure of
arrest. Under this, the complete process been mentioned related to arrest a person
who committed any offence. The essential object of criminal law to protect the
society from criminals and from law-breakers. Therefore, criminal law consists both
substantive and procedural law. Chapter V of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
deals with the arrest of persons under (Sections 41 to Section 60).Three People can
issue the process of arrest, they are as follows:

● A police officer with or without warrant, or

● A private person, or
● A magistrate

Meaning of Arrest : This term “Arrest” is a very common term that we pick up a lot
in our day today life. Normally, we see a person, who do or have done something
against the law, get arrested. The term ‘arrest’ means apprehension of a person by
legal authority so as to cause deprivation of liberty.

As per Legal Dictionary by Farlex, “Arrest” means “a seizure or forcible restraint; an

exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping
of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal
charge.”

In criminal law, arrest is an important tool for bringing an accused before the court
and to prevent him from absconding. Thus, after an arrest, a person’s liberty is under
the control of arrester. Every deprivation of liberty or physical restraint is not arrest.
Only the deprivation of liberty by legal authority or at least by apparent legal
authority, in a professionally competent and adept manner amounts to arrest.
However, a person against whom no accusation of crime has been made may be
arrested /detained under a statute for certain purposes like removal in safe custody
from one place to another, for example – removal of a minor girl from a brothel. One
thing to be noted that ‘custody’ and ‘arrest’ don’t have the same meaning. Taking of
a person into judicial custody is followed after the arrest of the person by Magistrate
on appearance or surrender. In every arrest there is custody but not vice versa.
Thus, mere taking into custody of a person an authority empowered to arrest may
not necessarily amount to arrest.

PURPOSE: The mere purpose of arrest is to bring an arrestee before a court and to
secure the administration of the law. An arrest also serve the function of notifying
society that an individual has committed a crime and to deter him from committed
any other crime in the future.

Arrest can be made in both criminal and civil both but in civil matters the arrest is the
drastic measure which is not looked upon in favour by the court.

Who are authorized to arrest a person?

An Arrest can be made by a police officer, magistrate or any private person, like you
and me can also arrest any person but the arrest should be made according to the
process mentioned under Crpc.

A police officer is authorized to arrest a person without warrant and without warrant.
The code exempts the members of Armed forces from being arrested for anything
done by them in discharge of their official duties except after obtaining the consent of
the government (Sec. 45).

Any private individual may arrest a person only when the person is a proclaimed
offender and the person commits a non-bailable offence and cognizable offences in
his presence (sec. 43).

Any magistrate (whether Executive or judicial) may arrest a person without a warrant
(sec. 44)

Circumstances under which an arrest can be made without warrant

● When any person is actually concerned or reasonably suspected to be

concerned in a cognizable offence

● Any person, who in the presence of such an officer has been accused of
committing a non-cognizable offence and refuses to give his true name or
residence.

● Any person concerned or reasonably suspected to be concerned in any act

committed at a place outside India which if committed in India would be
punishable as an offence for which he would be liable to be apprehended or
detained in custody in India.

● Any person for whose arrest any requisition is received from another police
officer competent to arrest that person without a warrant
 ● Any person reasonably suspected of being a deserter from any of the Armed
Forces of the Union

● Any person found in possession of any implement of house-breaking without

any lawful excuse

● Any person found in possession of property reasonably suspected to be

stolen and who may be reasonably suspected of having committed an offence
with reference to such property

● Any person obstructing a Police officer in the discharge of his duties

● Any person who has escaped from lawful custody

● Any released convict committing a breach of any rule made under Section
356(5) of CrPC

● Any person designing to commit a cognizable offence which cannot be

prevented (except) by the arrest of such a person

● A police officer in charge of a police station may as a preventive measure

arrest without warrant any person belonging to one or more of the categories
of persons specified in Section 109 or Section 110 e. persons taking
precautions to conceal their presence with a view to committing a cognizable
offence, habitual robbers, housebreakers, thieves, etc. and persons habitually
indulging in the commission of certain social and economic offences.

Arrest by Police Officer

A police officer may arrest without a warrant under Sections 41 (1) to 151 CrPC;
under a warrant under Sections 72 to 74 CrPC; under the written order of an officer
in charge under Sections 55 and 157; under the orders of magistrate under Section
44 and in non cognizable offence under Section 42 CrPC. A superior officer may
arrest under Section 36 CrPC. An Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station may arrest
under Section 42 (2) and 157 CrPC.

Under Sections 41, 42, 151 CrPC, a Police officer may arrest without warrant in the
following conditions:

● Who has been concerned in any cognizable offence or

● Who has in possession, without lawful excuse, of any house breaking weapon
or
 ● Who has been proclaimed as an offender either under CrPC or by order of the
State Govt. or
● Who is in possession of any stolen property or
● Who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his duty or who has
escaped, or attempts to escape from lawful custody or
● Who is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from any of the Armed
forces of the Union or
● Who has been concerned in any law relating to extradition or
● Who, being a released convict commits a breach of any rule made under
sub-section (5) of Section 356 CrPC or

For whose arrest any requisition has been received from another police officer
specifying the person to be arrested and the offence and other causes for which the
arrest is to be made.

As held in the case of Swami Hariharanand Saraswati vs Jailer I/C Dist.

Varanasi, 1954, the arrested person must be produced before a magistrate within 24
hours, otherwise his detention will be illegal.

In the case of Joginder Kumar vs State of UP, 1994, it was held that no arrest can
be made merely because it is lawful to do so. There must be a justifiable reason to
arrest.

Further, in State vs Bhera, 1997, it was held that the “reasonable suspicion” and
“credible information” must relate to definite averments which must be considered by
the Police Officer himself before he arrests the person.

Powers of arrest under Section 151 of CrPC

Section 151 of CrPC provides for arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable
offences. This statutory provision empowers the police to arrest any person, without
orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, “if it appears to such officer” that
such person is designing to commit a cognizable offence and that the commission of
offence cannot be prevented otherwise.

PROCESS OF ARREST

Section 46 CrPC describes the way in which an arrest is actually made. As per
Section 46(1), unless the person being arrested consents to the submission to
custody by words or actions, the arrester shall actually touch or confine the body of
the person to be arrested. Since arrest is a restraint on the liberty of the person, it is
necessary for the person being arrested to either submit to custody or the arrester
must touch and confine his body. Mere oral declaration of arrest by the arrester
without getting submission to custody or physical touching to confine the body will
not amount to arrest. The submission to custody may be by express words or by
action.

Section 46(2) provides that if any person forcibly resists the endeavor to arrest him,
or attempts to evade the arrest, such police officer or other person may use all
means necessary to effect the arrest. Thus, if the person tries to runaway, the police
officer can take actions to prevent his escape and in doing so, he can use physical
force to immobilize the accused. However, as per Section 46(3), there is no right to
cause the death of the person who is not accused of an offence punishable with
death or with imprisonment for life, while arresting that person. Further, as per
Section 49, an arrested person must not be subjected to more restraint than is
necessary to prevent him from escaping.

Due to concerns of violation of the rights of women, a new provision was inserted in
Section 46(4) that forbids the arrest of women after sunset and before sunrise,
except in exceptional circumstances, in which case the arrest can be done by a
woman police officer after making a written report and obtaining a prior permission
from the concerned Judicial Magistrate of First class.

Section 41A deals with cases not covered under Section 41 (1), wherein a police
officer is directed to issue a notice and not to make an arrest unless the noticee after
receiving notice does not comply with the terms of notice or complies once and then
flouts it subsequently. If the notice complies with terms of notice, he may only be
arrested for the offence concerned for reasons to be recorded in writing by the police
officer.

Section 41B directs the conducts of Police officers while making and arrest. It directs
them to ensure that while making an arrest they bear an accurate, clear & visible
identification of his name for the purposes of easy identification, prepare an arrest
memo attested by either a family member of arrestee or a respectable member of
society and countersigned by the arrestee himself. The arrestee is also to be
informed of his right to have a relative or a friend of his informed of his arrest, if
arrest memo is not attested by his family member

Can a police officer may arrest a person in any other place in India outside
their jurisdiction?

As person section 48 i.e. pursuit of offenders into other jurisdictions lays down that a
police officer may, for the purpose of arresting without warrant any person whom he
is authorised to arrest, pursue such person into any place in india.
SPECIAL PROVISION TO FEMALES

As regarding to females they had been given following special protection as:-

General rule is that Females are not be arrested without the presence of a lady
constable and further no female be arrested after sun-set but there are exceptions in
some cases, where crime is very serious and arrest is important then arrest can be
made with special orders and it depends on the facts and circumstances of each
case. Separate lock ups to be provided for them.

The salutary principle that the medical examination of a female should be made by
female medical practitioner has been embodied in section 53(2).

ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSON

Section 43 lays down the process of arrest by private person:

Any private person may arrest or cause to be arrested any person who in his
presence commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence, or any proclaimed
offender, and, without unnecessary delay, shall make over or cause to be made over
any person so arrested to a police officer, or, in the absence of a police officer, take
such person or cause him 10 be taken in custody to the nearest police station.

If there is reason to believe that such person comes under the provisions of section
41, a police officer shall re-arrest him.

If there is reason to believe that he has committed a non-cognizable offence and he

refuses on the demand of a police officer to give his name and residence, or gives a
name or residence which such officer has reason to believe to be false, he shall be
dealt with under the provisions of section 42; but if there is no sufficient reason to
believe that he has committed any offence, he shall be at once released.

ARREST BY MAGISTRATE

Section 44 lays down the procedure of arrest by magistrate:

When any offence is committed in the presence of a Magistrate, whether Executive

or Judicial, within his local jurisdiction, he may himself arrest or order any person to
arrest the offender, and may thereupon, subject to the provisions herein contained
as to bail, commit the offender to custody.
Any Magistrate, whether Executive or Judicial, may at any time arrest or direct the
arrest, in his presence, within his local jurisdiction, of any person for whose arrest he
is competent at the time and in the circumstances to issue a warrant.

NO UNNECESSARY RESTRAINT –

Section 49 of CrPC provides that there should be no more restraint than is justly
necessary to prevent escape i.e. reasonable force should be used for the purpose, if
necessary; but before keeping a person under any form of restraint there must be an
arrest. Restraint or detention without arrest is illegal.

RIGHT TO KNOW THE GROUNDS OF ARREST:

Section 50(1) CrPC provides, “every police officer or other person arresting any
person without a warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the
offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.” Apart from the
provisions of CrPC, Article 22(1) of Constitution of India provides, “No person who is
arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of
the grounds of such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be
defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”

PERSON ARRESTED TO BE INFORMED OF THE RIGHT TO BAIL –

Section 50(2) of CrPC provides that any person arrested without warrant shall be
immediately informed of the grounds of his arrest, and if the arrest is made in a
bailable case, the person shall be informed of his right to be released on bails.
Section 50 is mandatory and carries out the mandate of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India.

SEARCH OF ARRESTED PERSON-

Section 51 of CrPC allows a police officer to make personal search of arrested

persons. With regard to the provisions of this section, the reference may be made to
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India which is a guarantee to the accused against
self-incriminating testimonial compulsion. Though an accused cannot be compelled
to produce any evidence against him, it can be seized under process of law from the
custody or person of the accused by the issue of a search warrant.

MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF ARRESTED PERSON –

Section 54 of the CrPC provides for compulsory medical examination by a medical

officer in service of central or state government, or by registered medical practitioner,
upon non-availability of such medical officer. Female arrestees can only be
examined by female medical officer or registered medical practitioner.

However, Section 53 & 53A of CrPC provide if there are reasonable grounds for
believing that an examination of arrestee, on a charge of committing rape or other
offence, will afford evidence so as to the commission of such offence, it shall be
lawful to medically examine blood, blood stains, semen, hair samples, finger nail
clippings by use of modern & scientific techniques including DNA and such other
tests, which the medical officer thinks necessary in a particular case, acting at the
request of a police officer.

PERSON ARRESTED NOT TO BE DETAINED MORE THAN 24 HOURS –

The constitutional and legal requirements to produce an arrested person before a

Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest must be scrupulously observed
(Khatri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 378). Section 57 is concerned solely with the
question of the period of detention. The intention is that the accused should be
brought before a magistrate competent to try or commit, with the least delay. The
right to be taken out of police custody by being brought before a Magistrate is vital in
order to prevent arrest and detention, with a view to extract confession or as a
means of compelling people to give information

RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON:

There are two types of rights of arrested person: –

(i) At the time of arrest

(ii) At the time of trial

In India accused have more rights as compared to victim: –

Introduction: Any person has to be treated as a human being, irrespective of the

fact that such person is a criminal. The accused persons are also granted certain
rights, the most basic of which are found in the Indian Constitution. The basic
assumption behind these rights is that the government has enormous resources
available to it for the prosecution of individuals, and individuals, therefore, are
entitled to some protection from misuse of those powers by the government. An
accused has certain rights during the course of any investigation; enquiry or trial of
offence with which he is charged, and he should be protected against arbitrary or
illegal arrest. Given below are some of the most important rights of an arrested
person:
Rights Of Arrested Person

1. Right To Silence

The ‘right to silence’ has been derived from common law principles. It means that
normally courts or tribunals should not conclude that the person is guilty of any
conduct merely because he has not responded to questions which were asked by
the police or by the court. The Justice Malimath Committee in its report was of the
opinion that right to silence is very much needed in societies where anyone can be
arbitrarily held guilty of any charge. As per the law of evidence, any statement or
confession made to a police officer is not admissible in a court of law. Right to
silence is mainly concerned about confession. The breaking of silence by the
accused can be before a magistrate but should be voluntary and without any duress
or inducement.

As per Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India guarantees every person has been
given a right against self-incrimination, it states that any person who has been
accused of any offence, shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself. The
same was again reiterated by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nandini
Sathpathy v. P.L.Dani; wherein it was held that no one can forcibly extract
statements from the accused and that the accused has the right to keep silent during
the course of interrogation (investigation). The Supreme Court again in the year
2010, held that narco-analysis, brain mapping and lie detector test are in violation of
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

2. Right To Know The Grounds of Arrest

2.1) As per Section 50(1) of Cr.P.C., every person who is being arrested by any
police officer, without any warrant, is entitled to know the full particulars of offence for
which he is being arrested, and that the police officer is duty bound to tell the
accused such particulars and cannot deny it.

2.2) As per Section 55 of Cr.P.C., when any person is being arrested by any police
officer, who is deputed by a senior police officer, then such subordinate officer shall
before making such arrest, notify the person to be arrested the substance of the
written order given by the senior police officer specifying the offence or other cause
for which the arrest is to be made. If this provision is not complied with, then the
arrest would be rendered illegal.

2.3) if the person is being arrested under a warrant, then as per Section 75 of
Cr.P.C, any person who is executing such warrant must notify the person to be
arrested, the particulars of such warrant, or even show such warrant if needed. If the
substance of the warrant is not notified, the arrest would be unlawful.

2.4) the Constitution of India also confers this right as one of the fundamental rights.
Article 22(2) of the constitution provides that “no person who is arrested shall be
detained in custody without being informed as soon as may be, of the grounds for
such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by a legal
practitioner of his choice.”

3. Information Regarding The Right To Be Released On Bail

Any person who is to be arrested without a warrant and is not accused of a

non-bailable offence has to be informed by the police officer that he is entitled to be
released on bail on payment of the surety amount. This helps people who are
arrested for bailable offences and are not aware of their right to be released on bail.

4. Right To Be Taken Before A Magistrate Without Delay

Irrespective of the fact, that whether the arrest was made with or without a warrant,
the person who is making such arrest has to bring the arrested person before a
judicial officer without any unnecessary delay. Further, the arrested person has to be
confined in police station only and nowhere else, before taking him to the Magistrate.
These matters have been provided in Cr.P.C. under sections 56 and 76 which are as
given below:

Section 56 of Cr.P.C. States that “Person arrested to be taken before Magistrate or

officer in charge of police station- A police officer making an arrest without a warrant
shall, without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions herein contained as to
bail, take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the
case, or before the officer in charge of a police station”.

Section 76 of Cr.P.C. States that “Person arrested to be brought before Court

without delay- The police officer or other person executing a warrant of arrest shall
(subject to the provisions of section 71 as to security) without unnecessary delay
bring the person arrested before the Court before which he is required by law to
produce such person”.

Further, it has been mentioned in the proviso of Section 76 that such delay shall not
exceed 24 hours in any case. While calculating the time period of 24 hours, the time
necessary for the journey is to be excluded. The same has been enumerated in the
Constitution as a Fundamental Right under Article 22(2). This right has been created
with a view to eliminate the possibility of police officials from extracting confessions
or compelling a person to give information.

If the police officials fails to produce an arrested person before a magistrate within 24
hours of the arrest, the police officials shall be held guilty of wrongful detention.

6. Rights at Trial

6.1) Right To A Fair Trial

The Constitution under Article 14 guarantees the right to equality before the law. The
Code of Criminal Procedure also provides that for a trial to be fair, it must be an open
court trial. This provision is designed to ensure that convictions are not obtained in
secret. In some exceptional cases the trial may be held in camera.

6.2) Right To A Speedy Trial by the Constitution of India

Though this right has not been specifically mentioned in the Constitution, however,
the SC in the Hussainara Khatoon case has made it mandatory that the investigation
in the trial must be conducted “as expeditiously as possible.”

In cases, wherein the maximum punishment that can be imposed is 2 years, once
the accused is arrested, the investigation for the trial has to be completed within the
period of six months or stopped on receiving an order from the Magistrate, unless
the Magistrate receives and accepts, with his reasons in writing, that there is cause
to extend the investigation.

7. Right To Consult A Legal Practitioner

Every person who is arrested has a right to consult a legal practitioner of his own
choice. This has been enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India, which cannot be denied in any case. Section 50(3) of the Code
also lays down that the person against whom proceedings are initiated has a right to
be defended by a pleader of his choice. This starts begins as soon as the person is
arrested. The consultation with the lawyer may be in the presence of police officer
but not within his hearing.

8. Rights Of Free Legal Aid

The Supreme Court in the case of in Khatri(II) v. the State of Bihar has held that the
state is under a constitutional obligation (implicit in Article 21) to provide free legal
aid to an indigent accused person as is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution . This
right does not come into picture only at the time of trial but exists at the time when
the accused is produced the first time before the magistrate, as also when remanded
from time to time. The Supreme Court further states that failure on the part of the
state to inform the accused of this right will vitiate the whole process of trial.
Therefore, a duty is imposed on all magistrates and courts to inform the indigent
accused of his right to get free legal aid. The apex court has gone a step further in
Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, wherein it has been laid down that
this constitutional right cannot be denied if the accused failed to apply for it. It is clear
that unless refused, failure to provide free legal aid to an indigent accused would
vitiate the trial entailing setting aside of the conviction and sentence.

9. Right To Be Examined By A Medical Practitioner

Section 54 of Cr.P.C:- “Examination of arrested person by a medical practitioner at

the request of the arrested person- When a person who is arrested, whether on a
charge or otherwise, alleges, at the time when he is produced before a Magistrate or
at any time during the period of his detention in custody that the examination of his
body will afford evidence which will disprove the commission by him of any offence
or which will establish the commission by any other person of any offence against his
body, the Magistrate shall, if requested by the arrested person so to do direct the
examination of the body of such person by a registered medical practitioner unless
the Magistrate considers that the request is made for the purpose of vexation or
delay or for defeating the ends of justice.”

8.Right to Silence

The 'right to silence' has been derived from common law principles. It means that
normally courts or tribunals should not conclude that the person is guilty of any
conduct merely because he has not responded to questions which were asked by
the police or by the court. The breaking of silence by the accused can be before a
magistrate but should be voluntary and without any duress or inducement.

Important case
D.K. Basu v. State of W.B

Despite several attempts being made by issuing guidelines in various cases, to

eradicate the possibility of the committing torture by the police officials, there were
frequent instances of police atrocities and custodial deaths. Therefore, the Supreme
Court, in this case, issued some guidelines which were required to be mandatorily
followed in all cases of arrest or detention. Following are some of the important
ones-
 ● The person who is going to arrest any accused should bear accurate, visible,
and clear identification along with their name tags with their designations.

● The police officer who is arresting the arrestee must prepare a memo of
arrest, and it should be attested by at least one person who may either be a
family member of the arrestee or any other respectable person in the locality.
The memo must contain the date and time of arrest and must also be
countersigned by the arrestee.

● If the person who has signed the memo of arrest is not a family member,
relative or friend of the arrestee, then the arrestee is entitled to have one
friend or relative being informed about his arrest as soon as possible.

● The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone
informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is
detained.

● Entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest
of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the
person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of
the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.

● The police officer should, on the request of arrestee, record at the time of his
arrest major and minor injuries, if any, present on arrestee’s body, after
subjecting the arrestee to an examination. The “Inspection Memo” must be
signed both by the arrestee and the police official making such arrest, and
one copy of that memo must be provided to the arrestee.

● Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above,
should be sent to illaqa Magistrate for his record.

● The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though
not throughout the interrogation.

● The court also ordered that in every district and state headquarters, a police
control room should be established, wherein every arrest which is being made
must be reported by the police officer making such arrest within 12 hours of
such arrest, and it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.

The Court also emphasized that failure to fulfill the given requirements would render
the concerned officer liable for contempt of court along with departmental actions,
and such proceedings can be initiated in any High Court having territorial jurisdiction
over the matter.

CONCLUSION

Up to now we tried to understand the term “Arrest”, procedure of arrest, rights of the
arrested person and related case laws to the topics. Above mentioned each case
has its own significance. Arrest has a diminishing and demoralizing effect on the
personality. He is outraged, alienated and becomes hostile. But there needs to be a
balance between security of state on the one hand and individual freedom on the
other hand. There needs to be some checks on this power and more awareness
needs to be created among the people about their rights, so that balance system can
be formed.
PROCESS TO COMPEL APPEARANCES

Introduction: Process to compel appearance is defined as any means which is used

by the court to force the appearance of a defendant before it.There are various
modes to compel the appearance of a person.

Modes to compel appearance of a person

● Summons
● Warrant of Arrest
● Proclamation for Person Absconding
● Attachment

SUMMON

Summon is a legal document issued from the office of a court of justice calling upon
the person to whom it is directed to attend before a judge or officer of the court.
In other words, Summon is a milder form if process issued
● for enforcing the appearance of the accused or of witness and
● for production of a document or thing.
Summon should be clear and specified.

In crpc Sections 61 to 69 deals with the topic Summon. It tells us about the form of
summon and how it served and to whom it is served and various different modes
also.

SECTION 61 :- FORM OF SUMMON —

Every summon issued by the court under Section 61 of The Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 shall be:

● In writing
● In duplicate form
● Signed and sealed by the presiding officer of the court
● It should mention the time and place of the rule directed and shall bear the
seal of the court

Section 61 of the Code requires that every summons issued by a court shall be in
writing , in duplicate, signed and sealed by the presiding officer of such court.

It must clearly bear the seal of the court and show the name and address of the
person summoned, the place at which, the date and time when the person
summoned is required to appear before the court. It should also contain the place ,
time and nature of the offence committee. In absence of such particulars, the
proceedings may taken thereon are invalid.

These are also Eseentials of Summon

MODES OF SERVICE OF SUMMON

Following procedure shall be adopted:

A) By personal service
B) By Service on corporate bodies and societies under Section 63
C) By Service when person summoned cannot be found under Section 64
D) By Service on Government servant under Section 66
E) By Service of summons outside local limits under Section 67

SECTION 62:- SUMMON HOW SERVED—

The summons shall be served by a police officer or an officer of the court issuing it or
other public servant.

The summons has to be served personally on the person summoned, by delivering

him one of the duplicate copy of the summons. The person to whom summon is
served shall signs a receipt on the back of the other duplicate. Section 62 mainly
stress on the fact that summons should be served personally. Service of summons
by registered pistol is illegal.

Therefore Section 62 made us clear that who can serve Summon?

Following persons can serve the summons as per Section 62 of The Code of
Criminal Procedure,1973:

● Police Officer
● By an officer, subject to such rules as the State Govt. may prescribe.
● The court may allow summons to be served personally by delivering or
tendering to him one of the duplicates of the summons if any request is made
by complainant or accused.
● Every person on whom summons is served shall sign a receipt on the back of
the other duplicate as per required by the serving Officer.

SECTION 63:- SERVICE ON CORPORATE BODIES AND SOCIETIES —

As per Section 63 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 Service of a summon on
a corporation may be effected by serving it on the :

● secretary,
● local manager or other principal officer of the corporation,
● or by letter sent by registered post, addressed to the chief officer of the
corporation in India, in which case the service shall be deemed, to have been
effected when the letter would arrive in ordinary course of post.
●
*In this section “ corporation” means an incorporated company or other body
corporate and also includes a society registered under the Societies Registration
Act,1860.

SECTION 64:- SERVICE WHEN PERSN SUMMONED CANNOT BE FOUND —

Where the person summoned cannot be found, the summons may be served by:

● leaving one of the duplicates for him with some adult member of his family
residing with him,
● the person with whom the summons is so left shall sign a receipt therefore on
the back of the other duplicate.
●
A servant is not a member of the family within the meaning of Section 64 of The
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.

If personal service as provided in Sectio 62 cannot be effected, the law permits

service of summons on some adult member of the family. But to justify any such
service, it would be necessary to show that proper efforts were made to find the
person summoned.

SECTION 65:- PROCEDURE WHEN SERVICE CANNOT BE EFFECTED AS

BEFORE PROVIDED-
If service cannot be done as per Section 62 63 and 64 the Serving Officer shall:

● affix one of the duplicates of the summons to some conspicuous part of

house or homestead where the person summoned resides ordinarily.

● After that Court will make such enquiries as that summon is considered as
duly served or order fresh service in such manner.
This is called substituted service. Where personal service of summon as provided
under the code is not possible, this section makes provision for a substituted service,
by affixing a duplicate copy of it to some conspicuous part of the house of the person
summoned.

The procedure for service of summons provided in this section cannot be made use
unless service in the manner prescribed in section 62, 63 or 64 cannot be effected
by the exercise of due diligence. Summons on a person employed abroad cannot be
served by affixture to his house in India but it should be sent to the Indian Embassy
for service.

SECTION 66:- SERVICE ON GOVERNMENT SERVANT—

Section 66 states services of summon on government employees can be effected

either personally or through head of department in which such person is employed.
As per Section 62 duplicate copies are send to head of the office who shall serve the
summons in the manner provided by section 62 and shall return it to the Court under
his signature with the endorsement. The signature shall be evidence of due service.

It was held in Dhani Ram v. State, that a notice of proceeding under sectio 126 on
a Government servant by registered post or by publication in newspapers is not
warranted.

SECTION 67:- SERVICE OF SUMMONS OUTSIDE LOCAL LIMITS—

Where a summons is to be served outside the local limits of jurisdiction of the court
issuing it, it shall be sent to the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the person
is either resident or is otherwise present.

SECTION 68:- PROOF OF SERVICE IN SUCH CASES AND WHEN SERVING

OFFICER IS NOT PRESENT —

As per Section 68 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 the Officer who served
the summons outside local jurisdiction needs to submit an affidavit regarding the fact
that the summon was served if he is himself not present at the time of hearing. And
also duplicate of summons endorsed as per manner provided under Section 62 or
Section 64 will be admissible as evidence by the person to whom it was delivered or
tendered.

The affidavit may be attached to the duplicate of the summons and has to be
returned to the court.
SECTION 69:- SERVICE OF SUMMONS ON WITNESS BY POST—

According to Section 69 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 Court directs a

copy of summons which has to be served by registered post addressing to the
witness at the place where he ordinarily resides or carry on his business or
personally works for gain.

Then witness has to sign an acknowledgment or endorsement has to be made by

postal employee that witness refused to take delivery of summons has been
received. On this Court may declare summons has been duly served.

WARRANT OF ARREST :-

Introduction: The second method of securing attendance of a person is by means

of a warrant of arrest. The warrant is an order addressed to a certain person
directing him to arrest the accused and to produce him before the court. It is
executed by a Magistrate on good and legal ground only.

Form of Warrant of Arrest and Duration ( Section 70)

Section 70 of the Code gives the essentials of a warrant of arrest. It lays down that
every warrant of arrest issued by a court shall be in writing, signed by the presiding
officer of such court, and shall bear the seal of the court.

Warrant of arrest shall be in such form as is prescribed in Form No. 2 of the Second
Schedule of this Code. The following are the requisites of a valid warrant:

(i) It must be in writing

(ii) It must be signed by the presiding officer;

(iii) It must bear the name and designation of the police officer or other person who is
to execute it;

(iv) It must give full particulars of the person to be arrested so as to identify him
clearly;

(v) It must specify the offences charged; and

(vi) It shall bear the seal of the court.

(vii) It should indicate the date of issue

Duration of the warrant of arrest:

Every warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the court which issued it or
until it is executed. A warrant of arrest does not become invalid on the expiry of the
date fixed for the return of the warrant.

POWER TO DIRECT SECURITY TO BE TAKEN:-

Warrant are of two kinds: Bailable and Non Bailable

Section 71 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 deals with bailable warrant and
lays down that a warrant may contain a direction of the court that if the person to be
arrested executes a bond with sufficient sureties for his attendance before the court
at a specified time, the serving officer shall take such security and release him from
custody.

Such a bailable warrant shall also include;

● The number of sureties;

● The bond amount and the time period during which the arrested person is
supposed to attend the court
● The officer to whom warrant is directed shall forward the bond to the court.

This section provides for issue of a bailable warrant but does not empower the court
to order the physical delivery of the arrested person to another. A non - bailable
warrant cannot be issued against an unwanted person.

WARRANT TO WHOM DIRECTED:-

According to Section 72 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 The warrants are

to be directed to the following persons:
● To one or more Police officer
● If no police officer is immediately available than the court may direct it to any
other person or persons.

When warrant is directed to more officers or persons instead of one than it may be
executed by all or by any one of them or more of them.

In other words, a warrant is directed to one or more police officers but this section
provides that it may be directed even to persons other than police officers if
● there is necessity for immediate arrest
 ● no police officer is immediately available

WARRANT MAY BE DIRECTED TO ANY PERSONS:-

As per Section 73 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 the Chief Judicial

Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class may direct a warrant to any person within
his local jurisdiction for the arrest of any escaped convict, offender or person
accused of a non-bailable offence, or a proclaimed offender and is evading arrest.

Such person shall acknowledge the receipt of warrant in writing. After that such
person shall execute the warrant against whom it was issued if he enters any land or
other property under his charge.

After the arrest has been made, arrested person shall be made over with the warrant
to the nearest Police Officer who shall take him before a Magistrate having
jurisdiction in the case unless security has been taken under Section 71.

WARRANT DIRECTED TO POLICE OFFICER :

According to Section 74 a warrant can be executed by a Police Officer to whom it

has been directed or may also be executed by any other police officer whose name
is endorsed upon the warrant by the officer to whom warrant was directed or
Endorsed.

The only requirement under this section is endorsement, by one police officer to
another, of the execution of the warrant. The endorsement must be in the name of a
police officer and not by his designation.

NOTICE OF SUBSTANCE OF WARRANT:-

Section 75 deals with notification of substance of warrant and mandates every police
officer (or other officer)to notify the substance of the warrant to the person whom he
or she is arresting. Failure on the officer's part would give the person sought to be
arrested, the right of private defence and consequently any resistance offered by
such person will not be punishable.

This section requires that the substance of the warrant must be notified to the person
to be arrested, and on demand it must also be shown to him so that he may have an
opportunity to read it. If the public servant executing a warrant of arrest does not
notify the substance to the arrested person in accordance with this section , he will
be acting in violation of law.
PROCEDURE TO BROUGHT AN ARRESTED PERSON BEFORE COURT
WITHOUT DELAY:-

Section 76 stipulates that the person arrested must be brought before the Court(
subject to the provisions of Section 71 as to security) without unnecessary delay. As
per the proviso it is clear that the delay, unless caused by extraneous circumstances,
cannot be more than twenty-four hours from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's
Court.

WHERE WARRANT MAY BE EXECUTED:-

Section 77 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 provides the functionaries the

power to execute warrants anywhere in India, the other sections are merely
procedural and lay down elaborate rules of dealing with the execution of warrants
outside the local jurisdiction of the Court issuing it.

This section does not impose any restriction upon the power of the police officer. The
section only declares that every warrant issued by any Magistrate in India may be
executed at any place in India. Execution of the warrant is not restricted to the local
limits of the jurisdiction of Magistrate.

WARRANT FORWARDED FOR EXECUTION OUTSIDE JURISDICTION:-

The provisions of Section 78 provides adequate safeguards to a person to be

arrested so that he is not arrested without having a proper authority and applied his
mind as to the legality of the warrant and authorised the arrest outside the
jurisdiction of the Court which had issued the warrant. Such warrant is forwarded to
the local authorities under whose jurisdiction it is to be executed instead of directing
the warrant to a police officer.

Where a warrant under this section is issued, it should bear the name and
description of the particular person intended to be arrested; otherwise it will not be a
valid warrant.

Sub-section (2) makes it obligatory for the issuing Court to forward warrant as well
as the substance of the information against the person to be arrested and also
documents, if any. This will enable the Court to decide whether bail may or may not
be granted before whom such person is produced.

In S. Velappan, a warrant of arrest was issued directing arrest of the proprietor of a

firm. The name or description of the proprietor was not mentioned. The warrant was
held invalid by Kerala High Court.
PROCEDURE TO DIRECT POLICE OFFICER FOR EXECUTION OF A WARRANT
OUTSIDE JURISDICTION:-

Section 79 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 states that a warrant may be

directed to a Police Officer outside the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate, however
this must be endorsed by the Executive Magistrate or to a Police Officer not below
the rank of an officer in charge of a Police Station.

Sub-section (2) states endorsement of his name by Such Magistrate or Police Officer
shall be sufficient authority to the Police Officer to whom the warrant is directed and
to execute the same the local police shall assist such Officer.

Sub-section (3) gives power to the Police Officer to whom warrant is directed to
execute the same when there is reason to believe that delay can be occasioned by
obtaining the endorsement. Than he can without endorsement of Magistrate or
Police Officer within whose local jurisdiction the warrant has to be executed, may
execute the same in any place beyond the local jurisdiction of the Court who has
issued it.

PROCEDURE ON ARREST OF PERSON AGAINST WHOM WARRANT ISSUED:-

Section 80 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 states that the person shall be
arrested and shall be taken to the Court who issued the warrant if the Court is within
30 kilometers of the place of arrest. Otherwise, the person shall be taken to the
Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police
within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the arrest was done or unless security has
been taken under Section 71, then he has to be taken before such Magistrate or
District Superintendent or Commissioner.

PROCEDURE BY MAGISTRATE BEFORE WHOM SUCH PERSON ARRESTED IS

BROUGHT:-

Section 81 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 lays down the procedure to be

followed by the Executing Magistrate before whom person arrested under a warrant
is produced.

It also states that once the arrested person is produced before the Magistrate, the
Magistrate shall grant bail to a person who is arrested for a bailable offence provided
that the person is ready to provide the security. If the person is arrested for a
non-bailable offence then the Magistrate may grant bail based on documents of the
case.
Also Section 81 does not envisage the grant of bail by the C.J.M. or the Court of
Session having jurisdiction over the place of person arrested by the police without
warrant.

It was held in Ranveee Singh v. Deshraj, that the court of chief judicial magistrate
or the court of sessions user in second proviso means the Court having territorial
jurisdiction concerning the offence. A court where the surrender is made, has no
territorial jurisdiction to grant bail.

Proclamation and attachment

Introduction: The fourth and fifth processes of compelling the appearance of a

person before a court are by a proclamation and attachment.

If any Court has reason to believe that any person against whom a warrant of arrest
has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant
cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to
appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than 30 days from the
date of publishing such proclamation.

Where a proclamation published is in respect of a person accused of certain

specified heinous offences and such person fails to appear at the specified place
and time required by the proclamation may pronounce him a ‘Proclaimed Offender’
under Section 82 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.

The Court may pronounce an absconder as a proclaimed offender if he is accused of

any of the following offences:

● Murder; Culpable homicide not amounting to murder

● Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder; Kidnapping or abducting in order

to subject person to grievous hurt, slavery etc.

● Committing theft after making preparation for death, hurt or restraint in order
to commit the theft;

● Committing robbery or attempting to do so; Causing hurt in committing

robbery; Committing dacoity/ dacoity with murder; Committing robbery/dacoity
with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt;
 ● Attempting to commit robbery/dacoity when armed with deadly weapon;
Preparing to commit or assembling to commit dacoity; Belonging to a gang of
dacoits,

● Causing mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house,

etc
.
● Committing house-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death;
Causing grievous hurt/death while committing lurking house-trespass or
house-breaking; Being member of group that causes grievous hurt/death
while committing lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night.

As per section 83, The proclamation shall be published:

(i) by publicly reading in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which
such person ordinarily resides,

(ii) by affixing it to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such
person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; and

(iii) by affixing a copy thereof to some conspicuous part of the court-house.

The court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in
daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.

Arrest of Proclaimed Offender

The primary responsibility for securing the arrest of a proclaimed offender rests with
the police of the station in which he is a resident. A Proclaimed Offender may,
however, be arrested by any police officer without any order from a Magistrate and
without a warrant. Any private person may arrest a Proclaimed Offender and hand
him over without unnecessary delay to a police officer or to the nearest police
station.

Punishment for non-appearance in response to the proclamation under section

82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure :

1) Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required
by a proclamation by the Court is punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both, and
2) Where a declaration has been made by the Court pronouncing him as a
proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine. s. 174-A Indian Penal Code.

Meaning of Abscond : Ordinarily, Abscomd means to hide himself. Abscond does

not, necessarily imply leaving of a place by the place by the person in which he is. A
person may with a view to evade his capture leave a place or may remain in it. He
may remain in it. He may remain in it and conceal himself. Where a person had
concealed himself before issuing of Process, continued to do so after the process
was issued, he was held to have absconded. Adsconding does not mean absence of
just a day or so, but it means remaining away for at least some days.

Attachment of property of person Absconding

The Court issuing a proclamation may order the attachment of any property whether
movable or immovable, or both belonging to the proclaimed person in order to
compel his appearance before the Court under Section 83 of The Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973. The Court will record it’s reasons in writing.

The attachment order can be made simultaneously with a proclamation order on two
occasions:

● one, when the property is about to be disposed of the whole or any part,

● two, the whole or part of the property is about to be removed from the local
jurisdiction of the Court.

According to Section 83 there are three modes for attachment of property:

If the property ordered to be attached is a debt or other movable property, the

attachment may be made—
● by seizure, or
● by the appointment of a receiver; or
● by an order in writing prohibiting the delivery of such property to the
proclaimed person or to anyone on his behalf; or by all or any two of such
methods, as the court thinks fit.

If the property ordered to be attached is immovable, the attachment shall, in the case
of land paying revenue to the State Government, be made through the Collector of
the district in which the land is situated, and in all other cases:
● by taking possession; or
● by the appointment of a receiver; or
 ● by an order in writing prohibiting the payment of rent or delivery of property to
the proclaimed person or to anyone on his behalf, or by all or any two of such
methods, as the court thinks fit.

If the property to be attached consists of livestock or is of a perishable nature, the

court may order its immediate sale.

It was held in Ratish Rai v. Mahesh Singh, that without having issued a
proclamation as envisaged under Section 82 attachment of property of the accused
is not permissible. In this case there was no proof or material to show that the
accused was Absconding, so the order of attachment under Section 83 was illegal.

Claims and objections to attachment :

Section 84 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 states that Any person other
than the proclaimed person may prefer a claim or make an objection to the
attachment of property within six months from the date of attachment on the ground
that the claimant or objector has an interest in the attached property and that such
interest is not liable to attachment.

Every such claim or objection shall be inquired into by the court in which it is
preferred and it may be allowed or disallowed.

If the claim or objection is disallowed in whole or in part, the claimant or objector may
within a period of one year institute a suit to establish his right in respect of the
property in dispute, but subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order of the court
disallowing the claim shall be conclusive.

Proviso of this section states that any claim which has been made within the period
allowed shall be continued by legal representative if claimant or objector is dead.

The section does not bar a party to institute a suit in a Civil Court within one year for
his right in respect of attached property which has been disallowed by the Criminal
Court. Therefore, right of a person to institute a suit in a Civil Court is not barred by
this section.

No claims or objections in respect of property attached can be preferred after such

property is released from attachment. But a third party can file a civil suit for
adjudication of his right or claim.

Release, sale and restoration of attached property :

According to Section 85,

Release is done:
● if the proclaimed absconder appears before the Court within the time specified
in the proclamation, his property shall be released from the attachment.

Sale is done when:

● he does not so appear within time, his property shall be at the disposal of the
State Government and it will remain under the absolute control of the
Government. But it shall not be sold until six months of expiration period from
the date when attachment was done and no claims and objections were made
under Section 84. But if property is of perishable nature then Court may sold it
whenever it thinks sale would be for the benefit of the owner.

Restoration of property is done:

● If the proclaimed person appears within two years from the date of the
attachment and satisfies the court that he did not abscond or conceal himself
for the purpose of avoiding execution of the warrant and that he had no notice
of the proclamation, the property or net proceeds of the sale after deducting
the cost of the attachment shall be delivered to him.

Appeal from order rejecting application for restoration of attached property:

Section 86 lays down the rule regarding appeal from order rejecting application for
restoration of attached property. Any person who is refused under sub-section (3) of
Section 85 to get back his property or delivery of property is not done or the
proceeds of the sale are not given to the aggrieved person than he may appeal to
the Court where appeals lie ordinarily from the sentences of the first-mentioned
Court.

It is a new provision made in this Code which expressly provides for an appeal
against an order rejecting any request for restoration of property.

Other rules regarding Processes

Issue of Warrant in lie of , or in addition to, summons :

Section 87 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 empowers a Court to issue

warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons. It provides: `A court is empowered in
any case by this Code to issue a summons for the appearance of any person, issue,
after recording its reasons in writing, a warrant for his arrest-

A court may issue a warrant in lieu of or in addition to a summons for the

appearance of any person in the following three cases:

(i) Where the court believes that the person summoned has absconded or will not
obey the summons;

(ii) Where although the summons is proved to have been served in time, the person
summoned without reasonable cause fails to appear; and

(iii) On breach of a bond for appearance.

A Magistrate ought not to issue a warrant either in lieu of or in addition to summons

in a summons case unless he has previously recorded the reason for his so doing.
(Sections, 87, 89).

Power to take bond for appearance :

Section 88 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 empowers the Court to take

bond for appearance. It lays down when an officer is present in a Court who is
empowered to issue a summons or warrant for arrest and appearance of any person.
Such Officer is empowered to require such person to execute a bond with or without
sureties for his appearance in such Court or any other Court where the case may be
transferred for trial.

This section applies to a person who is present in court and is free because it speaks
of his being bound over, to appear on another day before the court. But where the
person is already under arrest and in custody, his appearance is dependent not on
his own volition but on the volition of the person who has his custody.

Arrest on breach of bond for appearance:

Section 89 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 states that when any person
who is bound by any bond taken under this Code to appear before a Court, does not
appear, the officer presiding in such Court may issue a warrant directing that such
person be arrested and produced before him.

Section 89 has reference to the case of a person who is bound by a bond to appear
in the court. It provides for a warrant only in case the person does not appear at the
time when he is bound by the bond to appear; but it does not apply to a case where
prior to the time for appearance, arrest by warrant is sought to be effected.

Provisions of this chapter generally applicable to summons and warrants of

arrest:

This provisions contained in this chapter relating to a summons and warrants, and
their issue, service and execution, shall, so far as may be , apply to every summon
and every warrant of arrest issued under this code.

Conclusion :
Peace and Good behavior are two important expectations of a civilized
society. It is also the duty of state to attempt to maintain peace and good
behavior. The sec. 106 to sec. 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
takes a step in this direction. Provision related to peace and good behavior is
following.

1. Security for keeping peace on Conviction:-

Sec.106 provides for security for keeping peace on conviction. According to

it-when a court of session or court of first class magistrate convicts any person
for any of the following offences or of abetting such offence and is of the
opinion that it is necessary to take security from such person for keeping
peace, then the court may order him to execute a bond, with or without
sureties’ for keeping the peace for such period not exceeding three years:-

a) Any offence which consists of assault or using criminal force ore

committing mischief.

B) Any offence of criminal intimidation.

c) Any other offence which caused, or was intended or known to be likely to

cause, a breach or peace. Inder Singh VsHarbans Singh-1955.

2. Security for keeping peace in Other Cases:-

Sec. 107 of the code lays down the provision for demand of security for
keeping peace in certain matters. According to it: -
a) A breach of peace.
b) Disturb the public tranquility.
c) Any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of peace or disturb
the public tranquility. Then he may ordered that he shall execute a bond with
or without sureties for keeping peace for such period not exceeding one year.
(Ramnarayan Singh V/s State of Bihar-1972.

3. Security for good behavior from persons disseminating Seditious

Matters:-
Sec 108 lays down provision for taking security from person disseminating
seditious matters.

a) Any matter the publication of which is punishable under section 124-A or

Sec 153A or Sec 153B or Sec 295A or the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
b) Any matter concerning a judge acting or purporting to act in the discharge
of his official duties which amounts to criminal intimidation or defamation
under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). Then such magistrate may demand
such person to execute a bond, with or without sureties’, for his good behavior
for such period not exceeding one year. This system has been declared
constitutional in the public interest K edarnath Singh V/s State of Bihar,
1962.

4. Security for good behaviour from Habitual Offenders:-

Sec. 110 of the code lays down the provision for demand or security for good
behaviour from habitual offenders. According to it, when an executive
magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a
person who:-
a) Is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger,
b) Is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been
stolen.
c) Habitually protects or harbors thieves, or aids in the concealment or
disposal of stolen property.
d) Habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, the
offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief.
e) Habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of,
offences, involving a breach of peace.
f) Habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of any
offence under:-Then such may require such person to execute a bond with
sureties for his good behaviour for such period not exceeding three years.
Procedure:-Sec.111 to Sec 124 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
lays down the procedure for taking security keeping peace and good
behavior:-

1. When the magistrate receives any information under sec 107,108, 109 or
sec 110 then the magistrate shall order him explaining the following points i)
with the intention to require him to show cause why he should not execute a
bond for keeping peace or good behavior Banarsi V/s Neelam-1969.

a. If such person is not present in the court, then he shall be issued a

summon and if such person is in custody than a warrant directing the officer in
whose custody he is to bring him before the court shall be issued(Sec 113).

b. Every summons or warrant shall be accompanied by the copy of order (Sec

114).

c. If upon such inquiry, it is proved that it is necessary for keeping peace and
maintaining good behaviour that such the magistrate shall require such bond
(Sec 117).

Here it is important that the ordered bond and amount of bond should be
justifiable. It should not be so much that the related person cannot execute a
bond of such amount.
Introduction : Public order and peace is something that should prevail in every
civilised society. Peace and public order are essential for every civilised society and
it is the duty of the state to maintain the Public Order and Tranquility. Section 31 of
the Police Act,1861 defines the term “maintenance of public order” which requires
that the order should be maintained on public places and should not be obstructed
by assemblies and processions.

Several provisions have been laid down in the Indian Penal Code, The Code of
Criminal Procedure and The Police Act for the maintenance of public order and
tranquillity. Maintenance of Public Order and Tranquility has been dealt with
specifically under Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The public order is disturbed mainly due to the following reasons.

● Unlawful Assembly
● Public Nuisance and Urgent Cases of Nuisance
● Disputes related to immovable properties

Provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Maintaining public order and tranquillity is one of the major objectives of every
government. Chapter-X of the Cr.P.C being the second branch of the preventive
measures of the Code deals the preventive provisions for maintenance of public
order and tranquillity.,

Chapter X of the Cr.P.C, titled as “Maintenance of Public Order and Tranquillity” has
provisions to lay down the mechanism of the procedure to maintain public order and
peace. The chapter consists of an overall 21 sections which deal with the procedural
steps to be followed and taken in the maintenance of public order and tranquillity.
Section 129 to Section 132 deals with the provisions for unlawful assemblies.

Section 129: Use of civil force for dispersal of an assembly

According to section 129 of Cr.P.C, the order to disperse any assembly that is an
unlawful one and likely to cause disturbance to the public peace may be issued by-

● Any executive Magistrate

● Officer in charge of a police station or,
● Any police officer who is a sub-inspector or above the rank of sub-inspector in
the absence of such officer in charge
When an order is passed for dispersal, it shall be the duty of the members of such
assembly to disperse accordingly.

After an order for dispersal is issued and such assembly disobeys the order and do
not disperse, or, even if not so commanded, the assembly shows determination of
not to disperse,then any Executive Magistrate or Officers as empowered under
subsection (1) of section 129 may use force in order to disperse such unlawful
assembly.

If necessary, even if any male person is not an officer or member of armed force but
acting as such, may arrest or confine the members of such unlawful assembly and
then they may be punished by law.

The authority to disperse an unlawful assembly has been granted to the Executive
Magistrate or the officer-in-charge of a police station. In case of absence of the
officer-in-charge, a command can also be given by a police officer, not below the
rank of sub-inspector.

In the landmark judgement of State of Karnataka v. B. Padmanabha Behya, it

was held by the Supreme Court that when there is an event of firing by the police
without lawful orders of authority, the dependents of the deceased are entitled to
compensation by the State.

Under article 19(1)(b) of the constitution of India every individual has a fundamental
right to assemble peacefully and without arms but reasonable restrictions can be
imposed in the interest of integrity and public order which are to be regulated by the
procedures laid down in Chapter X of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Section 130: Use of armed forces to disperse the assembly

Section 130 of the Code of Criminal Procedure comes into play when the unlawful
assembly cannot be dispersed otherwise.

When an unlawful assembly cannot be dispersed by any other means, and when it is
necessary for the public security that such assembly should be dispersed, it can be
dispersed with the help of armed forces by the order of Executive Magistrate of the
highest rank present.

Such Magistrate may order any officer in command of any group of persons
belonging to the armed forces to take the help of armed forces under his command
to disperse the assembly. He is also empowered to arrest or confine the members of
such assembly in order to maintain the public security in accordance with the orders
of the Magistrate. He has also power to have them punished according to law.

The requisitions laid down under this section shall be obeyed by every officer of the
armed forces empowered under this section in such manner as he thinks fit. While
following the orders and taking any step to maintain public security, he shall use as
little force with the objective of maintenance of public order.

Section 130 entitles the lawful authority to use force to disperse the unlawful
assembly when it is needed in the interest of maintaining public security.

Section 131: Powers of certain armed force officers to disperse the assembly

To maintain public order and tranquillity, certain armed force officers are also
empowered to disperse assembly according to the procedure laid down under
Section 131 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Section 131 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows.

When the public security is manifestly endangered by an unlawful assembly and no

communication can be made with the Executive Magistrate, in such cases certain
armed force officers are empowered to disperse assembly with the help of the armed
forces under his command, and may arrest and confine any persons forming part of
it.

While such armed force officer is acting under this section and it becomes
practicable for him to communicate with an Executive Magistrate, he shall do so.
After communication is established, he shall henceforth obey the instructions of the
Magistrate regarding whether he shall or shall not continue such action.

This section has been enacted in order to lay down provisions to maintain public
security in the case when no executive magistrate can be reached so that the public
order and tranquillity can be maintained more efficiently.

Section 132: Protection against prosecution for acts done under proceeding
sections

Section 132 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives protection to the prosecution
for any act done under section 129 to 131 of the Code of Criminal Procedure except
with the sanction of State or Central Government.
Section 132 states the Protection against prosecution for acts done under preceding
sections.

No prosecution shall be instituted in any Criminal Court against any person for any
act purporting to be done under section 129, section 130 or section 131, except-
(a) when such person is an officer or member of armed forces than with the sanction
of the Central Government;

(b) in any other cases sanction of the State, the government is required.

(a) The acts done by an executive magistrate or police officer under any of the said
sections should be with good faith.
(b) any person doing any act in good faith in compliance with requisitions laid down
under section 129 or section 130.

(c) when an officer of the armed forces is acting in good faith under section 131.

(d) Any member of the armed forces shall not be deemed to have committed an
offence when he has done any act in obedience to any order issued and which he
was bound to obey such order.

(3) In this section and in the preceding sections of this Chapter,-

(a) the expression” armed forces” in this section refers to the military, naval and air
forces,

(b)the term ” officer“, used under this section is in relation to the armed forces. Any
person commissioned, gazetted or in pay as an officer of the armed forces is
considered as an officer. It also includes a junior commissioned officer, a warrant
officer, a petty officer, a non- commissioned officer and a non- gazetted officer;

(c) a person in the armed forces other than an officer is considered as a “member”
referred under this section.

Essentials for benefit under Section 132

For having the benefit granted under section 132 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the officer has to fulfil certain essential conditions:

● There was an unlawful assembly.

● That assembly was commanded to be dispersed.
● The assembly did not disperse on the command to disperse.
 ● Or, if no command was given the conduct of assembly seemed determined
not to disperse.

In the above circumstances, the officer had to use force to disperse the assembly.

Public Nuisances

The term public nuisance has been defined under section 268 of the Indian Penal
Code. Though it is not so dangerous and urgent as unlawful assembly, a public
nuisance is a threat to public peace and security.

Provisions under Cr.P.C

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with provisions to deal with the matters
of public nuisance. Section 133,134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142 and 143
deals with the procedures to be followed in matters related to public nuisance and
the Urgent cases Nuisance or apprehended danger has been dealt under section
144.

Section 133: Conditional Order for removal of nuisance

According to Section 133, a conditional order can be passed by a District Magistrate,

Sub- Divisional Magistrate or any Executive Magistrate empowered by the state for
removal of public nuisance.

There are six categories of public nuisance which can be resolved under this section:

● The unlawful obstruction or nuisance to any public place or to anyway, river or

channel lawfully used by the public.
● The conduct of any trade or occupation or keeping of any goods or
merchandise which is/can be injurious to health or physical comfort of the
community.
● The construction of any building, or disposal of any substance, as it is likely to
occasion or explosion.
● A building, tent, or structure, or a tree as it is likely to cause damage or injury
to a person.
● An unfenced tank, well or excavation near a public place or way.
● A dangerous animal that requires confinement, destruction or disposal.

When a proceeding is instituted under section 133 of Cr.P.C, a civil suit can continue
parallel without any bar as held in the case of Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P.
A conditional order under section 133 of Cr.P.C is mandatory and without it, no final
order can be made. The conditional order must specify the time period in which the
nuisance or obstruction is to be removed or resolved. The order duly made under
this section by a magistrate shall not be called in question in any civil court.

The magistrate can make a conditional order against the following person.

● The person causing obstruction or nuisance.

● The person carrying on such trade or occupation which is likely to cause a
public nuisance.
● The person keeping any such goods or merchandise which can be injurious to
health or physical comfort of the community.
● The person who owns possesses or controls such as building, tent, structure,
substance, tank, well or excavation.
● The person owning or possessing such tree or animal which is dangerous and
can cause injury or damage.

The conditional order can be passed under section 133.

● To remove the obstruction or nuisance.

● To abstain from carrying on such trade or occupation.
● To remove such goods or merchandise causing nuisance or, to regulate or
keep in the manner as directed by the magistrate.
● To remove, repair or support such building, tent, structure or tree.
● To fence such tank, excavation or well.
● To destroy, confine or dispose of such dangerous animal as manner
prescribed in the order.

Section 134: Service or notification of order

According to section 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the order shall be
served on the person against whom it is made in the manner which is followed for
service of summons. If such an order cannot be served, it shall be notified by
proclamation or published in such manner as the state government directs.

Section 135: Person to whom the order is addressed to obey or show cause

According to section 135, When an order is served against a person, he is left with
two alternatives. He should have to either-

● Carry out the order by performing in accordance with the directions given in
the order.
 ● he may show cause against the order issued.

These alternatives are mutually exclusive. A reasonable opportunity should be given

to the party to show cause under section 135(b).

Section 136: Consequences of failing to obey such order

According to section 136, If the person against whom the order is issued fails to
perform such act or appear and show cause, he is liable to the penalty prescribed
under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., Disobedience to order duly
promulgated by a public servant.

In the case of Nagarjuna Paper Mills Ltd. v. S.D.M. & R.D. Officer, Sangareddy,
the court held that Sub- Divisional Magistrate is empowered to pass an order under
section 136 of the code to close factory causing pollution as it failed to produce
appreciation certificate from the Pollution Control Board.

Section 137: Denial of Public Right

Section 137 lays down the procedure where public rights are denied. Procedures laid
down in section 137 are mandatory before taking recourse on the procedure laid
down under section 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The requirements of this section are as follows.

● Firstly, that the party against whom a provisional order is made shall appear
before the magistrate, and deny the existence of the public right in question.
● Secondly, the party shall produce some reliable evidence.
● Thirdly, such evidence shall be legal evidence and shall support his argument
of denial of public right in question.

If all these above-said conditions are satisfied, the Magistrate’s Jurisdiction to

continue the proceeding is ceased.

As held in the case of Mani Mathai v. Uthuppu, on denial of public right, the
magistrate shall conduct a preliminary inquiry.

Disputes related to immovable property

Section 145 to 148 of the Criminal Procedure deals with the procedures when there
is likely to be a breach of peace and public order due to a dispute relating to
immovable property.
Section 145: Breach of peace by a dispute regarding land and water

Section 145 basically deals with disputes regarding possession. The main objective
of this section is to prevent any breach of public peace by maintaining possession of
one or the other party which the court finds has the immediate possession before
dispute unless the actual rights are decided by the civil court.

Under this section, when a report of police officer or information of dispute which is
likely to cause breach of peace concerning land, water or boundaries is brought
before the Executive Magistrate and he is satisfied by such report or information, he
shall make a written order requiring the parties to attend his court either in person.

According to subclause (3) of this section, the service of order is to be done as the
procedure laid down for the service of summons under the Code of Criminal
Procedure.

There must be an apprehension of breach of peace and public order for the
magistrate to pass preliminary order. As held in the case of Ram Pal Singh v.
Bhagelu, a magistrate is not bound to give preliminary order if he/she finds that there
is no apprehension of breach of peace.

Before the Magistrate passes the final order, both parties should be allowed to put
forward their evidence before the court. As held in the case of N. A. Ansary v.
Jackiriya, the opportunity to both parties for producing evidence before the court is
mandatory and if the opportunity is not given, the proceeding is been vitiated.

The right under section is not merely procedural rights but certain substantive rights
as well and as held in the case of Dhanbar Ali v. Haripada Saha, the procedures laid
down under this section have an integral connection with the enjoyment of the
immovable property and it should not be dealt lightly by the trial court.

Section 146: Attachment and appointment of a receiver

After making an order under section 145, the magistrate can anytime order under
section 146 for attachment of the subject in dispute and appointment of a receiver if:

● The Magistrate considers the case to be of an emergency

● he decides that none of the parties was in the possession as referred under
section 145
● He is unable to satisfy himself that which of either party was in possession of
the property in dispute.
When there is no longer felt that there are chances of breach of peace, the order of
attachment can be withdrawn at any time by the magistrate.

When a receiver is subsequently appointed by the civil court for the subject in
dispute:

● The Magistrate shall issue an order against the receiver appointed by him to
hand over the possession to the receiver appointed by the civil court.
● Thereafter, discharge the receiver appointed by him.
● Make any other order as may be just.

In the case of Ranjit Singh v. Moti Lal Katiyar, it was held that the power should be
exercised by the magistrate with due care and diligence and it should be exercised in
limited cases when immediate action is required to maintain peace and prevent any
breach of public order.

Before an order of attachment is passed, serving notice to the opposite party is not
mandatory as an opportunity of hearing needs to be exempted in emergency cases
as held in Krishna Chandra Patel v. Khela Kuri Patel.

Section 147: Dispute regarding the right of use land or water

Section 147 of Cr.P.C acts as an amplification of section 145. This section

empowers the executive magistrate to issue a written order against the parties to
appear before the court either in person or by pleader, if he is satisfied upon the
report submitted by the police or information of dispute which likely causes a breach
of peace due to a dispute regarding land or water within the local jurisdiction. The
right claimed against the matter in dispute can be an easement or otherwise.

The magistrate hears both parties in accordance of evidence produced by both

parties and decide the right of parties exists or not applying provisions of section 145
in the inquiry. Order can be issued by the magistrate prohibiting any interference
regarding the exercise of such rights.

In the case of Gulam Farid Mian v. Ahmad Bhathihara, it was held that for this
section the person may not be referring the right of easement in the strict sense but
may have acquired right of the user by any other mode. The right should be
distinguished from the use of land as owner and in a lawful way.

Section 148- Provisions for local inquiry

According to section 148, when under section 145, 146 or 147, the necessity to
conduct an inquiry is felt, a District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate may
depute any subordinate magistrate to conduct an inquiry by issuing a written
instruction which may be necessary for his guidance.

After conducting an enquiry, the report is submitted by the deputed magistrate and it
may be read as evidence in the case. For any cost incurred by any party in
proceeding under section 145, 146 or 147, the magistrate can issue direction of
payment by the party. The order can be passed to make payment either in part and
proportion. The expenses with respect to witness and pleaders’ fees may also be
included in the expenses as the court feels reasonable.

As held in the case of Lakhan Singh v. Kishun Singh, the principle of natural
justice should be followed and the party should be given an opportunity to be heard
before any adverse order is passed against it.

Conclusion

Public Peace and security are necessary for every civilised society and it is the duty
of State to maintain public order and tranquillity. The provisions of the Indian Penal
Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure lay down the provisions to maintain public
order and tranquillity.

Indian Penal Code states provisions and punishment for acts which can be a threat
to public peace and security while the Code of Criminal Procedure states the
procedure which needs to be followed by the state to maintain the public peace and
tranquillity. The procedures under chapter X of Cr.P.C are to be taken in urgent
matters which are a threat to public peace and security. Either the threat to public
order is by an unlawful assembly, a public nuisance or due to a dispute related to
immovable property, Chapter X of Cr.P.C contains procedures to deal with such
instances.
Urgent cases of Nuisance or appregended danger ( Section 144 to 144 A)

Introductio : In order to deal with emergent situations, wide powers have been
bestowed on an executive magistrate under Section 144 of CrPC. It bestows an
omnibus power on magistrates to issue an order in cases of nuisance or
apprehended danger provided the cases are urgent. There is a range of situations in
which a magistrate may resort this power in the interest of the public as provided
under Section 144(1):

● In cases where a speedy remedy is desirable.

● In cases of immediate prevention.

Also, the magistrate is supposed to issue the order in writing setting forth the
material facts of the case and the order is to serve in a manner as provided by
Section 134 of Criminal Procedure Code.

The scope of Section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code

According to this law, the order or the action taken under this section is anticipatory
in nature i.e. certain actions are restricted even before they actually occur. Whenever
as per the opinion of the magistrate ‘there is sufficient ground for proceeding under
this section’, the law is applicable.

The order may direct:

● Any person to withhold from doing a certain act, or

● If a certain property is in his possession or under his management, then he

can make an order with respect to it.

The ground for making an order is that if such an offence in the opinion of the
magistrate is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent,

● Obstruction,
● Annoyance,
● injury to any person lawfully employed, or
● a danger to human life, health or safety, or
● a disturbance of the public peace (tranquillity), or
● a riot, or
● an affray.
Hence, this section provides for making an order which is either prohibitory or
mandatory.

In the case of Radhe Das v Jairam Mahto where the disturbance was over a piece
of property, the magistrate had ordered under Sec 144 of CrPC restricting the
respondents from entering the property. During the judicial proceedings, respondents
also claimed prohibition of petitioners which was subsequently granted by the
magistrate. The respondents in response to this claimed that their right over the
property was being violated by the order. It was held by the court that private rights
must be given away for the greater benefit of the society at large and the action
should be for the prevention of public peace and tranquillity.

Before the application of this section, there are certain principles which must be kept
in mind which have been explained in the case of Manzur Hasan v Muhammad
Zaman:

● The power should be used only for the purpose of maintaining public peace
and tranquillity.

● Private rights may temporarily be annulled and interest of the public is given
priority.

● Under Sec 144, rights of civil nature or disputes regarding title of properties
are not open for decision in a proceeding.

● The consideration should be for a large section and not that such restriction is
affecting only a minor section of the community.

The principles have been approved in the case of Shaik Piru Bux v Kalandi Pati.

Though extraordinary powers are bestowed by this section as it enables to suspend

the lawful rights of a person if such a suspension of the right will be in the interest of
public peace and safety. But, Magistrate should ensure that the right is not
diminished as a citizen has the right to express his grievances either in public or in
private and ask for remedy or reform.

Also, an order under Section 144 cannot be of permanent or semi-permanent nature.

As held in the case of Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v Police
Commissioner. The Anand Margis were prohibited from performing Tandava on the
streets or carry skulls in processions by an order of the commissioner under Section
144 of the code. In this case, the first order lasted for two months and then after
every two months, the commissioner reissued the order which was challenged. It
was held by the Supreme Court that reissuing of order again and again was an
abusive use of power.

The rationale for the Application of Section 144

Under this section, orders are acceptable only when it is likely to prevent:

Annoyance

It can be of two types namely physical or mental annoyance. In physical annoyance,

a certain amount of propinquity should be there between the object but in mental
annoyance, no question of propinquity arises. Under this section even if an order
deals with nuisance, there must be a danger to life and health involved or breach of
peace. This section should not be used to deal with abusive articles and defamatory
statements which are not likely to lead to a breach of peace.

Injury to Human Life

A magistrate must ensure that the order is likely to prevent the risk of injury to human
life or safety and he cannot make an order for the protection of property. The act
must be satisfied on the ground that if not prevented right now, then it would turn into
an offence in the near future.

Disturbance of Public Tranquility

The act prohibited under this Section must not be enough to say that by stretching it
would have possibilities to establish a connection of cause and effect between the
public tranquillity and the act prohibited. The connection should have reasonability
and should not be just hypothetical or distant.

The order should be in the interest of public tranquillity and not for the advantage of
one party.
Although the section does confer power on the magistrate and if there is an imminent
danger to public peace then interference even with private rights maybe justifiable
but the section cannot be used in favour of one party, i.e., one party should not be
given material advantage over the other party.

Constitutional Validity of this Section

The provisions laid down in this section are not in excess of the limits as provided in
the Constitution for restricting the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a), (b),
(c) and (d). The restrictions are reasonable and there is an availability of sufficient
safeguards to the person affected by an order under section 144 of CrPC. If properly
applied, the section is not unconstitutional. It was stated in the case of Madhu
Limaye v S.D.M. Monghyr that the fact that it may be subdued is no ground for
holding it as violative of the constitution.

The five points which were enumerated by the Supreme Court which justified the
constitutional validity of the section is as follows:

● In case the magistrate passes an ex-parte order, then a notice must be

served to the person against whom the order is being passed unless it is the
case of an extremely critical situation.

● The persons against whom such order is passed have a right to challenge the
same which shows that there is no arbitrariness.

● The principles of natural justice are also in accord of this section, i.e., an
opportunity of hearing is provided to the person and also he can show cause
order.

● The fact that the injured party can challenge the order ensures that the action
of the magistrate is more reasonable and is of convincing nature.

● The High Court has the power to look into the matter under Sec 435 of the
Code read with Sec 439 of the Code which brings up the condition that the
order under Sec 144 is non-appealable. Therefore, the liability of the
magistrate is ensured as the High Court can either quash the order or for the
material facts of the Magistrate.

Hence, it is held that preventive action under Section 144 is justified.

Duration of The Order

The examination of Section 144 makes it clear that a total of 60 days has to be
calculated from the day on which prohibitory order was passed at the time of
initiation of the proceeding.

This time period of 2 months can be extended to a maximum of 6 months from the
date of expiry of initial order by the state government. Though the power bestowed
with the state government is executive in nature but if in case the court finds the
decision arbitrary or sees it as an unfair exercise of power, then the revision of the
order can be made by the Magistrate.

Conclusion
The most important thing is that before passing an order, the magistrate must be
satisfied with the ground of proceeding which should be sufficient under this section
and an immediate prevention and speedy remedy must be desirable. The second
element is that the magistrate must consider the fact that the direction which he
gives is likely to prevent or tends to prevent annoyance, obstructions or injury to any
person lawfully employed. It should be decided as a matter of fact by the magistrate
that whether it will lead to the breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity.

The order should contain the following contents:

The order should be in writing.

Order must be specific and definite in terms.
Material facts must be stated in the order.
Prohibition must be clearly stated.
However, at this juncture there appears to be a need to balance the granting of
plenary powers by the legislation to deal with the emergent situations and that the
personal liberty should be protected and other freedoms must be granted to the
citizens especially the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Information to police and the power of police to investigate

Introduction

Under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the procedure of investigation
in criminal cases has been incorporated. It requires the intimation of information to
the police officer on the commission of a crime. Before the commencement of the
investigation, the police officer has to satisfy himself about certain grounds. If the
grounds are present, the investigation shall be begun with.

What is the procedure followed by the police while investigating a criminal case?
Let’s take a look –

The procedure elaborated below is the one for cognizable offences. In

non-cognizable offences, the police officer does not have any authority to arrest
without a warrant. The police officer has to obtain a warrant under Section 155(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Difference between cognizable and non-cognizable offence?

Cognizable offences are the ones in which the police do not need a warrant to make
the arrest. In cognizable offences, the police officer can investigate on his own
without permission from the Magistrate. Example – Murder, Rape, Dowry, etc.

Non-Cognizable offences are those offences which require a warrant for arrest.
Non-cognizable offences are less serious in nature. In these offences, it is
mandatory for the police to obtain permission from the Magistrate to conduct the
investigation. Example – Defamation, Forgery, Assault, etc.

Intimation of the information to a police officer

The information has to be intimated to the police officer in charge of the police
station in whose jurisdiction the crime has been committed. After the police officer is
made aware of the offence, there are two conditions which need to be fulfilled before
the commencement of the investigation.

The first ground being that the police officer has a reason to suspect that the
cognizable offence is the same as required by Section 157(1).

The second is that there should be sufficient grounds present before the police
officer before entering into an investigation.
The information which has been received by the officer shall be reduced to writing
which is known as ‘first information’. There are no provisions which mention ‘First
Information Report’. However, the meaning can be understood from the words itself.

Furthermore, any information which is given by any woman in relation to any

specified offence, it has to be recorded by a woman police officer.

Nowadays, FIRs can also be electronically communicated.

In Guman Singh v. State of Rajasthan, before the commencement of the

investigation, the Station House Officer and the investigating officer had received
information from an unknown person about a murder.

Thus, before commencing an investigation, it is necessary for the Magistrate to take

cognizance of the offence.

Sending a report to the magistrate

The report which is sent to the magistrate is defined as the police report. It is
forwarded by the Police Officer to the Magistrate. This is the preliminary report which
acquaints the Magistrate that the police officer shall be investigating that particular
case. Section 158 of the Code of Criminal Procedure talks about the submission of
the report to the Magistrate.

The main object of sending the report to the Magistrate is to make him aware of the
investigation process of the cognizable offence. It is done so that the Magistrate is
able to control the investigation process and give any directions under Section 159 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure if necessary. The directions were the instructions
given to the Police Officer for conducting the investigation.

If the police officer is not pursuing the investigation further, this has to be mentioned
in the report which is to be sent to the magistrate.

Report to be sent without any delay

The report needs to be sent to the magistrate without any delay. In Nalli v. State, the
Madras High Court had to acquit a person accused of murder on the grounds that an
“unexplained” and “inordinate” delay was there in dispatching the first information
report to the Magistrate.
The report has to be sent in a reasonable amount of time. The use of the term
“forthwith” in Section 157(1) was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alla
China Apparao v. State of Andhra Pradesh: The expression forthwith would
undoubtedly mean within a reasonable time and without unreasonable day.

If any delay is being caused in sending the report, it should be explained properly
citing the reasons for the same.

Investigation

The investigation includes all the procedures which are done by the police officer
under the Code for the collection of evidence. The investigation may be conducted
by a police officer and not the Magistrate. The Magistrate can also authorize any
other person to conduct the investigation on his behalf.

Three types of reports are required to be prepared at three different stages of

investigation are as follows.

(1) A preliminary report from the officer-in-charge of a police station to the

Magistrate under Section 157.

(2) Section 168 requires the submission of a report from a subordinate officer to the
officer-in-charge of the station.

(3) Section 173 requires a final report to be submitted to the Magistrate as soon as
the investigation is completed.

The investigation of a case begins after the preliminary report is submitted by the
police officer to the Magistrate.

Examination of witnesses

The most crucial part of the investigation lies in the examination of witnesses. The
statement made by them can hold a person guilty. The police officer who is
investigating the case has been empowered to conduct witness examination. The
witnesses are bound to answer the questions which are related to the case truly.

Section 161 lays down the procedure for the examination of witnesses by the police.
The investigating officer shall examine the persons who are acquainted with the facts
of the case. It is the duty of the investigating officer to record the statements of the
eyewitnesses without any delay. After examining the witnesses, it is required by the
police officer to write down the statement made by the witness.
There should be no delay on the part of the police officer investigating the case in
examining the witnesses. In the event of a delay of the examination of the witness,
the onus lies on the investigating officer for explaining the reasons for the delay. In a
case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there was an unexplained delay for ten
days, and there were some contradictions as well, the Supreme Court was of the
opinion that evidence became suspect owing to the delay.

Whereas, when the delay has been properly explained, it does not have any adverse
impact upon the probative value of a particular witness.

The police officer while examining the witnesses is not bound to reduce the
statements made into writing.

It is preferred that the statements should be written or the substance of the whole
examination should be written down at least.

The recorded statements are required to be noted down in the case diary maintained
under Section 172 of the Code.

Statements to the police not to be signed

The statements which are made by the witnesses during the examination needs to
be signed by the witness who is making such a statement. The statements so made
shall not be used for any other purpose.

Statements made under Section 161 can be used for contradiction

Section 161 of the Code requires the person who is acquainted with the facts of the
case to make statements to the police.

Such statements can be used for the purpose of contradiction by the Prosecution or
the Accused. For example, if a witness in court says, “I saw Mahesh running with a
knife covered in blood from her home,” this statement can be contradicted by the
statement, “I did not see Mahesh running with a knife covered in blood from her
home.”

Recording of the statement under Section 164 CrPC

Section 164 of the Code envisages the provisions for the recording of statements in
the presence of a Magistrate. The confession has to be recorded in the course of the
investigation. No confession shall be recorded by a police officer.

Warning to the accused or the person making a confession

Before recording the confession, it has to be explained to the person making the
confession that he is not bound to make a confession. And, if he does so, it can be
used as evidence against him as well. The statement made by a person should be
recorded with his consent and voluntarily. It is a statutory obligation which is imposed
by the Code on the Magistrate to make the accused aware of his rights.

Also, a person cannot be kept in custody if before recording the statement, he states
that he does not want to do so.

Recording of the statement when the Magistrate does not have jurisdiction
The Magistrate may record a statement of the witness even if he does not have
jurisdiction in the case. The Magistrate who recorded this confession shall forward
the same to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired.

The authority of recording confessions is exclusively vested with the Judicial

Magistrate under the Code.

Furthermore, the confessions which are recorded under this Section must be in the
course of an investigation.

Signature of the accused on the confession

The confession which has been made by the accused should be duly signed by him.
If the confession has not been signed, it is not admissible in evidence. It is absolutely
mandatory to obtain the signature of the accused.

A confession under this section should be made either in the course of the
investigation or before the commencement of inquiry or trial.

In Sasi v. State of Kerala, it was held by the Supreme Court that it is not necessary
to make a confession before an authorized person only. The Supreme Court had
said, “Any person to whom a confession has been made can give evidence of it in
the court regarding the confession. Also, if it is made to such a person, the court has
to look after this. The court needs to see that the person before whom such a
confession is being made can be believed or not.

Search to be conducted by the police officer

A police officer or the investigating officer has been empowered under section 165 of
the Code to search the premises whenever he feels necessary or has reasonable
grounds to believe the same. The investigating officer or the officer-in-charge
conducts the search when he believes that there are sufficient or reasonable
grounds to pursue the same. The search is conducted when there is an absolute
necessity for the same.
Section 93(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the grounds under
which a warrant for search shall be issued. Moreover, the search has to recorded in
the diary otherwise it becomes illegal.

Procedure for search

The investigating officer would go to the locality where the offence was committed
and get two people called the ‘Panchas’. The evidence given by the Panchas is of
paramount importance. They sign a document called the Panchnama which contains
the evidence collected out of the search. It is signed by them which validates the
search and the procedure adopted during the investigation.

What does Panchnama mean?

Panchnama has not been defined anywhere in the law. However, it is a document
which holds great value in criminal cases. The Panchnama states things which were
found at a particular place and at a particular time. Not only the Criminal Courts but
also the Civil Courts use it.

After this, a memorandum of the search is prepared by the investigating officer or the
officer-in-charge. It needs to be submitted to the Magistrate.

A search of a closed place and also of a person

The police officer-in-charge or the investigating officer who has a valid warrant is to
be allowed to conduct the search of a place. Force may be used if he is not allowed
to do so. The search is not just only of the premises but also of a person. If it is a
female, a female officer shall search her with utmost decency.

The search of the closed place or of a person has to be made before two
respectable persons of the society. These respectable persons are known as the
‘Panchas’. They need to sign the document validating the search. However, the
Panchas need not necessarily be called as witnesses.

A search of a place entered by a person who is sought to be arrested

Under Section 47 of the Code, the search of a place can be conducted by the police
when they have to arrest a person. The police can break in and enter if they are not
being allowed in the place. There is also an allowance for “no-knock break-in” to take
place: this is done to take the person by surprise.

A search memo is prepared by the officer which needs to be sent to the Magistrate.
The same memo is sent by the Magistrate to the owner of the occupier of the place.
A subordinate officer may be appointed in the place of the officer who is unable to
conduct the search in person. The police officer needs to record his reasons for not
being able to conduct the search in writing.

Moreover, proper reasons shall be recorded for conducting the search. This means
that the police officer should be satisfied that there is a need for conducting a search
to further the investigation. The basic objective of conducting a search is to find
evidence which may help in solving the case.

Report to be filed before the Magistrate after completion of the investigation

Section 173 of the Code requires the investigating officer to file a report before the
Magistrate after the collection of evidence and examination of witnesses are done
with. This section requires that each and every investigation shall be completed
without any unnecessary delay.

Section 173(2) requires the (i) the names of the parties; (ii) the nature of the
information; (iii) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the
circumstances of the case; (iv) whether any offence appears to have been
committed and, if so, by whom; (v) whether the accused has been arrested; (vi)
whether he has been released on his bond, and if so, whether with or without
sureties; (vii) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170 to be
submitted in the closure report before the Magistrate.

The report under section 173 is called as the “Completion Report”. Also known as
the “charge sheet”. Sending such a report is extremely necessary and mandatory.

In the report, the officer also needs to communicate the action which shall be taken
by him. The final report will be of two kinds:

(1) Closure Report

(2) Charge Sheet/Final Report

Closure Report
Closure report is the one in which it is stated that there is not enough evidence to
prove that the offence has been committed by the accused. Once the closure report
is filed before the Magistrate, he may accept and the report the case as closed,
direct a further investigation into the case, issue a notice to the first informant as he
is the only person who can challenge the report or he may directly reject the closure
and take cognizance of the case.
The report under Section 169 of the Code can be referred to as the Closure Report.

Charge Sheet

A charge sheet is a final report prepared by the investigating officer in furtherance of

proving the accusation of the crime committed. It enumerates upon the elements of
the offence and also the details of the complete investigation of the Police authorities
and the charges against the accused. It envisages the facts in brief, a copy of the
First Information Report, all the statements recorded under section 161 and section
164, list of the witnesses, list of seizure and other pieces of evidence collected by the
investigating agency during the investigation.

It is on the basis of the charge sheet that the Magistrate frames the charges against
the accused.

A charge sheet is different from the First Information Report (FIR). A charge sheet
describes how a crime has been committed.

Inquest Report

An inquest report is prepared to determine the cause of death in cases of suicides,

unnatural death, and deaths caused in the commission of an offence. An inquest by
the police falls under section 174 of the CrPC. It is a document which is of
paramount importance because it is handed over to the doctor along with the dead
body of the victim when it is being sent for the post-mortem examination. An inquest
report does not give substantive evidence. However, it provides corroborative
evidence given by the officer who makes the report.

When the charge sheet is sent to the Magistrate, the preliminary stage of
investigation and preparation is over. Upon the receipt of the charge sheet, the
Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence.

Further investigation can be ordered by the Magistrate even after the charge sheet
has been filed.

The police officer may also at his convenience forward true copies of the documents
to the accused.

After the charge sheet is filed, the course of investigation ends and the Trial of the
case starts.

Conclusion
The investigation process involved in criminal cases is extremely thorough. It
involves a lot of procedures which need to be followed with due diligence. One
mistake, and it can lead to the acquittal of an offender. The police leave no stones
unturned while investigating the case. The investigation starts from the cognizance
of the offence to the filing of the report under section 173 before the Magistrate. The
guilty will get convicted after his Trial gets over and the Court finds proof that he
committed the offence.
Constitutional validity of Search & Seizure

Introduction

The complete procedure of Code of Criminal Procedure is based upon the principle
of justice and fairness. One of the fundamental principles of legal jurisprudence and
natural law is that any person who is accused of any offence should be given an
equal chance to be heard and to defend himself in the Court of justice.

It is in harmony to these principles that there are certain provisions in Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) related to the process of proceedings, provisions in
section 161(3) and provision in section 162 of the code specify that any statement
recorded by the police officers during the course of investigation, shall not be signed
by the person making the statement.

Similarly supporting provisions upholding the proposition of legal jurisprudence

against the protection of self- incrimination has been provided as a fundamental
right, under Part III of our Constitution of India in Article 20(3). Article 20(3) states,
“No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself”.

Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the power of the courts and
police authorities regarding search and seizure of document or thing.

In our discussion, our main focus will be particularly upon the power of the courts or
officer in charge to issue a summons or summon notice in section 91(1) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. The issue of power under section 91(1) has been dealt in
detail by the apex court of the country in case of M.P. Sharma & others v Satish
Chandra, State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu Oghad and State of Gujarat v Shyamlal
Mohanlal Chowksi.

Section 91 of CrPC with headnote Process to Compel Production of things

states as follows.

“(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that
the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the
purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code by
or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a
written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is
believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time
and place stated in the summons or order.
(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other
thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such
document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the
same”.

Historical Background

The principle supporting the legal jurisprudence first mentioned in the Fifth
Amendment of American Constitution which states that “no person shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. The same principle
has been embodied in the Indian Constitution under Article 20(3) but with some
different words. Article 20(3) states that “No person accused of any offense shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself”.

The expression “to be a witness” is of much concern as it will determine the extent to
which there is a complete umbrella against self- incrimination. The Honourable
Supreme Court in M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra stated that “to be a witness”
means to become a witness but not to appear as a witness thus the protection of
self-incrimination not only extends to compelled testimony but also to pre-trial
investigation and interrogation.

The similar interpretation of the phrase had been followed by the apex court in
Shyamlal Mohan Choksi v State of Gujrat and State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu
Oghad.

However apart from the similar interpretation, apex court made another interpretation
in Kalu Oghad’s case where the majority stated that “to be a witness means
providing knowledge in respect of relevant facts, by means of oral statements in
writing, by the person who has personal knowledge of the facts to be communicated
to the court or to any officer holding investigation.

A person is considered to be a witness to certain facts which has to be required by a

court or any authority to come to a decision, by testifying to what he has seen or
something he has heard which is capable of being heard.

Therefore even if any person is accused of any offence and if he has any document
which has the tendency to expose his guilt or something by which he will himself
confirm the criminal charges against him, he can be summoned by any competent
court of any police authority to produce the document or thing and that the
summoned issued will not be considered as against protection of self-incrimination.
The only requirement is that the content of the document should not reveal any
information based on the personal knowledge of the accused. This interpretation is
criticized by various jurists and scholars and said that “such acts will amount to self-
incrimination”. For example, if an accused person has in his possession a letter, to
be written by a person alleged to be his co-conspirator having reference to their
common intention for committing an offence.

Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the document is relevant fact against the
accused himself of the purpose of proving conspiracy and also showing that he was
the party to such conspiracy. By providing such document accused is not providing
any personal knowledge, yet it would certainly be giving evidence of relevant facts.
This is the practical application provided by the majority.

However, Honourable Supreme Court in its later decision held that the term ’person’
does not include the accused person. However, the reason of judgement of the court
states that it is implicit in section 91(1) that an accused will not be called for any
document which will be self-incriminating.

Summons and Conflict With Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution

Section 91 of CrPC provides the powers to the courts and officer in charge of the
police station to issue a summon for document or someone which is necessary or
desirable for purpose of any investigation. Whereas section 93 in its sub-section (1)
gives powers to issue search warrants. Section 93(1) of CrpC provides that:

(1) (a) Where any court has reason to believe that a person to whom a summons or
order has been issued under section 91 or a requisition under section 92 has been
or might be, addressed, will not or would not produce the document or thing required
by such summons or requisition, or

(b) where such thing or document is unknown to the court to be in possession of any
person, or

(c) where the court considers that the purpose of any inquiry, trial under this code will
be served by a general search or inspection, it may issue a search warrant: and the
person to whom a search warrant is directed may inspect in accordance therewith
and provisions hereinafter contained”.

It can easily be interpreted from the above sections that an in-charge office or a court
can issue summons under section 91(1) to any person who the court thinks has the
possession of document or thing necessary for the investigation. But if the court feels
that the person to whom summons or notices is issued will not produce the
document or thing, the court has the power to issue a search warrant to an officer
under section 93(1)(a) of CrPC.

Constitutional Validity

Article 20(3) states that “No person should be accused to be a witness against
himself”. The protection against self-incrimination under Indian Constitution is based
on the principle, “nemo tenetur prodere or nemo tenetur scripsum accusare” which
means that an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. It is the
State’s duty to prove accused guilty without any reasonable doubt. The principle is
just based on giving equal opportunity to accused to know what charges are levelled
against him and then on the basis of that he will prepare a proper defence for
himself.

From time to time constitutional validity of warrant under section 93(1) had been
raised in the context of Article 20(3) of Constitution. The contentions were raised by
many jurists and scholars that ‘any person’ in section 91(1) also includes the
accused person with other witnesses.

Therefore if an accused person does not obey the summons, he will have to face the
compelled search in his house, which shows the compulsion put on accused. This
compulsion put on the accused not only completely violates the fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 20(3) but also is an intrusion to privacy.

In light of these sections, there will be a prosecution for the offence committed under
section 174 of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 174 of Indian Penal Code with headnote ‘Non-attendance in obedience

to an order from public servant’ states that:

“ Whoever, being legally bound to attend in person or by agent at a certain place and
time in obedience to a notice, summon, order or any proclamation proceeding from
any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue the same,
intentionally omits to attend at that place or departs from the place where he is
bound to attend before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart, shall be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or
with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both, or if the summons,
order or notice is to attend in person or by agent in a Court of Justice, with a simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with a fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees or with both”.
With regard to the proposition of process of the search warrant, Honourable
Supreme Court in its leading case of M.P. Sharma and Others v Satish Chandra
stated that:

“There is no basis in Indian law for the assumption that a search or seizure of
document or thing in itself is a compelled production of the same. The court
observed that provisions of Article 20(3) and search warrants are essentially different
matters. A notice to produce addressed to the party concerned and its compliance
constitutes a testimonial act by a person to whom an order was issued but search
warrant is issued to a government officer. The search or seizures are not acts of the
occupier but acts of another. Hence does not amounts to self- incrimination under
Article 20(3)”.

In the whole, the search conducted by a police officer or any investigating authority
will be valid only if it is conducted without any help of the person against whom a
search warrant has been issued.

The apex court in Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi v State of Gujrat held that the term
‘any person’ in section 91 of CrPC does not include the person accused of any
offense and no notice can be issued to accused. However, the judgement in
Shyamlal’s case does not absolutely restrict the accused person. The ratio decidendi
of the judgement of the court in case of State of Bombay v Kathu Kalu Oghad kept
open the doors for some amount of flexibility.

To be a witness

The protection against self-incrimination under the Indian Constitution is based on

the principle, “nemo tenetur prodere or nemo tenetur scripsum accusare” which
means that an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. It is the
State’s duty to prove accused guilty without any reasonable doubt. The principle is
just based on giving equal opportunity to accused to know what charges are levelled
against him and then on the basis of that he will prepare a proper defence for
himself.

Conclusion

The entire discussion clearly establishes that the right against self-incrimination is
not an absolute right provided to the accused but its interpretation laid down in
Menka Gandhi case states that procedure established by law is to be just, fair and
reasonable. The Court observed that any procedure will ensure justness and
fairness only when it respects the rights of both victims and accused equally.
On the contrary, present law violates the equal protection of the law under Article 14
of the accused. So to maintain justness it was observed that, “it does not matter how
much substantive the document is or how much is relevant for proving the fact
without reasonable doubt, if it is incriminating then it should be inadmissible”.
FORM OF CHARGES AND JOINDER OF CHARGES

INTRODUCTION:- Charge means accusation . The meaning of charge has not been
provided under the Code. In general sense, charges are the allegations against the
accused. Charges are framed to inform the accused in a precise manner about the
offences he is charged so he can defend himself. Charge defined under section 2(b)
of The Code of Criminal Procedure include any head of charge when the charge
contains more heads than one. A charge is a formal recognition of concrete
accusation by magistrate or a court based upon a complaint or information against
the accused. It involves in Chapter17 which contains sec 211-224.

OBJECT - The main object of charge is to inform the accused clearly, The
accusation made against him before trial so that he can ready to defend himself.

Sec 211-214 deals with what the charge should contain, in terms of its content.

Form of charge

-Sec 211- . Legal provisions regarding particulars or contents of charge under

section 211 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Content of Charge (Section 211 Crpc)

The offence to be stated:-

1. It must state the offence with which the accused is charged.

2. If the law creates the specific name of the offence, the offence must described in
the charge by the name only.

3. If does not give any specific name, the definition of the offence must be state.

4. The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been
committed must be mentioned in charge.

5. The charge must be written in the language of the court.

6. The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal
condition required by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the
particular case;
7. If the accused, having been previously convicted to any offence, is liable, by
reason of such previous conviction, to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a
different kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is intended to prove such previous
conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the Court may think fit
to award for the subsequent offence, the fact, date and place of the previous
conviction shall be stated in the charge; and if such statement has been omitted, the
Court may add it at any time before the sentence is passed.

SECTION 212

Legal Provisions of Section 212 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Particulars as to time, place and person:

This section requires that the charge should contain particulars as to time and place
of the alleged offence and the person against whom the offence has been
committed.- the standard to be applied is anything that is reasonably sufficient to
give the accused notice of the matter.

Sub-section (2) it is drafted and an exception to meet certain contingencies and

allows for the mention of the aggregate details and an overall accusation involved in
case of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation. The charge so framed
shall be only of one offence.

This relaxation of joinder of charges extends only to cases of criminal breach of

trust or dishonest misappropriation, but it does not apply in case of other offences
like theft, falsification of accounts, cheating etc.

According to the proviso to the section, any number of acts of breach of trust
committed within one year will constitute one single offence. But where this period is
more than a year, the joinder of charges will be illegal. But the joinder of charges in
contravention of this proviso in respect of the offence of criminal breach of trust has
been treated as a mere irregularity which is curable under Sections 215 and 465 of
CrPC

-SECTION 213:- WHEN MANNER OF COMMITTING OFFENCE MUST BE

STATED:-When the nature of the case is such that the particulars mentioned in
sections 211 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with
which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner is
which the alleged offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose.
Eg ‘A’ is accused of cheating ‘B’ at a given time and place. The charge must set out
the manner in which ‘A’ cheated’B’.

SECTION 214:- WORDS IN CHARGE TAKEN IN SENSE OF LAW UNDER WHICH

OFFENCE IS PUNISHABLE:-Section 214 gives a rule for interpreting the words
used in the charge: It provides that in every charge words used in describing an
offence shall be deemed to have been used in the sense attached to them
respectively by the law under which such offence is punishable.

SECTION 215:- EFFECT OF ERROR:-Section 215 provides to prevent any failure of

justice for non-compliance with the matters required to be stated in the charge.
The main purpose of this section
is to prevent a miscarriage of justice when there is any defect in the formulation of
charge. It provides that any error or omission in any offence or particulars in the
charge will be considered material unless such error or omission prejudice the
accused and misled the justice. The section contemplates that any irrelevant
inconsistency in the charge will not affect the proceedings of the trial and its
outcome.

At the same time,Section 464 of the Code explains the same question. Section
464(2) provides for re-trial of the accused where there is a material error in the
charges resulted in the failure of justice. The main concern should be that the
accused had given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and had a fair trial.

Illustration to S. 215:

(a) A is charged under S. 242 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, with "having been in
possession of counterfeit coin, having known, at the time when he became
possessed thereof, that such coin was counterfeit,” the word “fraudulently” being
omitted in the charge.

Section 216 and 217 mentions the power of the court to alter the charge and what
the procedure post the alteration is.

SECTION216:-COURT MAY ALTER CHARGE:-Section 216(1) of Code empowers

the court to alter any charge. However, such alteration can only be made before the
pronouncement of judgment. Addition or alteration of a charge or charges implies
one or more existing charge or charges.

For adding a new charge there must be material before the court either in the
complaint or in the evidence to justify the action.
It is an inherent power of the court to correct the defects of the framing of charges
discovered at the initial stage or any subsequent stage prior to judgment.

According to section 216(2), every alteration or addition made shall be explained and
communicated to the accused.

216(3) Where the court is of the opinion that the alteration or addition will not
prejudice the accused or his prosecutor, the court may proceed with such alteration
or addition as if it has been the original charge.

216(4) But if the court is an opinion that it will prejudice the accused, it may adjourn
the trial for the necessary period or may direct to start the new trial. 216(5) where it is
necessary to take the previous sanction for any alteration, such case will not proceed
until the sanction is received unless the sanction is already received for the
prosecution on the facts on which such alteration is based.

SECTION217:-RECALL OF WITNESSES WHEN CHARGE ALTERED:-The section

requires the Court to enquire from the prosecution or the accused, as to whether
they would like to exercise their right to recall or re-summon the witnesses or have
further witnesses examined when a charge is altered or added after the
commencement of the trial.

The provisions of this section are mandatory and the Court is bound to allow the
prosecution and the accused 10 recall and examine any witness who may have been
already examined. The omission to comply with the provisions of this section is not
curable under Section 464 of the Code.

But if the Court is of the opinion that the application under Section 217 has been
made by the prosecution or the accused for delaying or defeating the ends of justice,
it may refuse to recall or se-summon a witness.

Joinder of Charges

In the case of K. Satwant Singh v. State Of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 266, that the
sections of joinder of charges are not compelling in nature. They only permit the joint
trial of charges under certain circumstances, and the courts may consider the same
in the interest of the administration of justice after thoroughly studying the facts and
circumstances of each case.

Essential provision related to framing of Charges

The general principle regarding charges as

purported by Section 218 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is that every
offence of which a particular has been accused shall come under a separate charge
and each such charge shall be tried separately and distinctly. This means that each
offence has to be treated as a separate entity and should be tried distinctively.

But, Section 218(2) carves out exceptions to Section 218(1). The provisions of
Section 219, 220, 221 and Section 223, override the provisions as mentioned under
Section 218 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure. This means that Section 219- 223
talks about the Joinder Of Charges.

The exceptions to Section 218

Exception 1

Three offences which are of the same kind, committed within a year may be charged
together: This section has been provided to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings
when the offences are of the same kind. It contains two circumstances:

According to Section 219(1), if a person has been accused of three offences of the
same kind then the person can be tried for all the offences together if they have been
committed within a span of twelve months from the first to the last offence.
Section 219(2) talks about the offences which are of the same kind, also punishable
with the same quantum of punishment.

Exception 2

Offences which are committed in the course of the same transaction and tried
together. It consists of the following:

If a person has committed a series of acts, which are so intrinsically connected

together that they form a single transaction, such series of offences shall be charged
and tried together. The word ‘transaction’ has not been defined under the Code
In case of offences of Criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of
property and their companion offences of falsification of accounts. Many a time, the
offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property are
committed along with the offence such as falsification of accounts etc., the latter
offence committed in order to fulfil the objective of the former offence. In such cases,
Section 220(2) enables the Courts to try such offences together.
If a single act falls under within different and separate definitions of offences, such
different offences shall be tried together as mentioned under Section 220(3).
 For e.g.: If a person X, wrongfully strikes a person Y with a cane, then X can either
be charged with and tried separately of offences under Sections 352 and Sections
323 of the Indian Penal Code or may be tried and convicted together.

If the acts which form an offence, also constitute different offences when separately
taken and tried or taken in groups, such offences shall be tried to be one in a single
trial.

For e.g.: If A commits the offence of robbery on B, and while doing so he voluntarily
causes hurt to B, then A may be separately charged with, and convicted of the
offences mentioned under Sections 323, 392 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

Exception 3

Section 221 provides for the cases wherein there is some doubt related to the
circumstances and incidents which took place during the commission of the offence.
According to this section, if the accused has committed a series of acts which lead to
confusion regarding the facts should be proved, the accused might be charged with
any or all of such offences or charged for alternative offences. In such cases, the
accused is charged for one offence and during the stage of evidence, if it is proved
that he has committed a different offence, he may be convicted for the same even
though he was not charged with the same.

Exception 4

Section 223 talks about the class of persons who can be tried jointly. This section
permits a joint trial of several persons under the specified circumstances as there
exists some nexus among the various offences committed. The various classes shall
not be treated as mutually exclusive and could be combined together if necessary.
According to this section, the following classes of persons may be tried and charged
together:

The accused persons who have committed the same offence in the course of the
same transaction.
The persons who have committed a particular offence and those who have abetted
the commission.

The persons who are covered under the ambit of Section 219.
The persons who are in the same course of the transaction have committed different
offences.
The persons who have committed offences such as theft, extortion, cheating, or
criminal misappropriation of the property along with the persons who have received,
retained, assisted in the disposal or concealment of property, possession of which is
illegal and has been alleged to be illegal.

The persons who have been accused of commission of offences under Section 411
and section 414 of the Indian Penal Code or under those sections in respect of
stolen property, possession of which has already been transferred by another
offence.

The persons who have been accused of any offence under Chapter XII of the Indian
Penal Code related to the counterfeit coins.

The accused persons whose cases have not been covered under any of the classes
of Section 223, cannot himself claim a joint trial. The proviso to this Section puts a
check on the discretionary power of the court.

The rules contained from Section 218 to Section 223 have been made for the benefit
of the accused. It is not required to treat the various classes of sections as mutually
exclusive. The Courts have been given the authority to combine the provisions of
more than two clauses. The joint trial of several persons partly by applying one
clause and by partly applying another clause has also been authorised.

Power of court to order separate trial in cases wherein joinder of charges or of

offenders is permissible

The general rule in case of charges is that there shall be a separate charge for every
distinct offence, which shall be tried separately. But, Sections 219, 220, 221 and
Section 223 carve out the exceptions to this basic rule. In simpler words, a separate
trial is a rule while a joint trial is its exception.

The provisions regarding the exceptions have only enabling nature, and it is at the
discretion of the Courts whether or not to apply them to a particular case. In the case
of Ranchhod Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1248, it was held that it is
at the discretion of the court whether to apply Section 219, Section 220 and section
223 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or resort to Section 218. The accused
has not been given this right to resort to joinder of charges.

The question regarding the misjoinder of charges and joint trial for distinct offences
was answered by the Supreme Court in the case of Union Of India v. Ajeet Singh
(2013) 4 SCC 186. It was held by the court that the principles underlying the
provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 only act as a guiding principle.
Conviction of an offence not charged when such offence is included in the offence
charged
According to Section 222, if the accused is charged with an offence consisting of
several particulars, some of which if combined and proved to form a minor offence,
then he may be convicted of such minor offence. Although the meaning of the term
‘minor offence’ is not defined under the code, it means an offence which has lesser
punishment than the other offence of which the accused has been charged.

Applicability of provisions related to joinder of charges in cases where no charge has

been formally made

It is not necessary in the summons cases to frame a formal charge. Mere stating to
the accused the particulars of the offences which he has been charged with would
suffice. In such cases, the question related to the applicability of provisions of joinder
of charges arises. Such a question has not been expressly dealt with by the Code Of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.

But, it has been established via a number of precedents like in the case of Upendra
Nath Biswas v. Emperor ILR (1913) 41 CaL 694, Indramani v. Chanda Bewa 1956
Cri LJ 1218 that the provisions of joinder of cases are equally applicable to the
summons case also.

Withdrawal of remaining charges on conviction on one of several charges

Section 224 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 talks about the withdrawal of
remaining charges. It is applicable only in cases where the accused has been
convicted of one of several distinct charges before the other charges have been
tried.

Conclusion

The framing of charge is the most basic step of the process of initiation of a trial in a
criminal proceeding. Utmost care must be taken while the charges are being framed
as wrong framing may lead to denial of justice. Therefore, one should abstain from
wrongful framing and joinder of charges as such an inefficiency would vitiate the very
basic essence of a fair trial.

While framing the charges, the judge needs to take care of the fact that there is an
existence of a case prima facie and should give his reasons for discharging the case
in writing.
The sections which deal with different types of trials only mention that only the duty
of framing of charges has been vested upon the courts. The court may alter/ add to
any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. Moreover, the provisions
dealing with the joinder of charges are not strictly applicable to the judges. There is
an existence of discretion upon the judges to either combine the charges or try each
charge separately depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
TRIAL BEFORE COURT OF SESSION ( SEC 225 - 237 )

Introduction

Sessions Court is the court that deals with criminal

cases at a district level. To be more precise, it deals
with the more serious warrant cases. It cannot take
cognizance directly of any offense except in cases
of defamation as given u/s 199 of CrPC. In rest
other, a competent magistrate takes cognizance
and commits the case to the court for trial.

This is the stage where mainly trials coupled with evidence, arguments, the
cross-examination (basically all the fun part of being an advocate) takes place.
Chapter-XVIIl, Sec.225-237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 substantially
deals with the procedure for trial before a Sessions
Court.

Procedure of Trial before Session court

District court referred to as sessions court when it exercises its jurisdiction on

criminal matters under Code of Criminal procedure, 1973. As per section 9 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the State government establishes court for every
sessions division. The court presided over by a Judge, appointed by the High Court
of that particular state. The High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges
and Assistant Sessions Judges in this court. In India, the Sessions Court is
responsible for adjudicating matters related to criminal cases. The court takes the
responsible for cases relating to murders, theft, dacoity, pick-pocketing and other
such cases.

Sessions Trial or Trial before a Court of Session

Section 225-237 of the Code deals with the procedure for a trial before a Court of
Session. A session trial is coupled with arguments, evidence and
cross-examinations. A sessions’ trial can be conducted in the following stage:

Initial Stage

A trial is initiated by the prosecution who tries to prove the guilt of the accused
through evidence.

Trial to be conducted by Public Prosecutor (section 225)

Section 225 of the Code lays down that the case of prosecution shall be conducted
by a Public Prosecutor where the trial is before a Court of Session. A Public
Prosecutor is a person appointed under section 24 of the Code and includes any
person who is acting under the directions of such prosecutor.

Opening case for prosecution ( Section 226)

As per section 226 of the Code requires a public prosecutor to open his case by
describing the charges against the accused and must also state the evidence
through which the prosecution will prove the guilt of the accused.

Discharge (section 227)

An accused may be discharged at the initial stage of a sessions’ trial. Section 227
empowers the Judge to discharge an accused if after consideration of the
documents and records submitted against the accused and after hearing the
prosecution and accused, the judge finds that there is no sufficient ground to
proceed against the accused. The section aims to ensure that a person is not
harassed unnecessarily by the means an unnecessary prolonged criminal trial.

In Sushil Ansal v. State,it was held that an order of discharge may be passed only
where the Court is almost certain that there is no prospect of conviction and that the
time of the Court need not be wasted by holding a trial. The Court while discharging
an accused is required to record the reasons for such discharge.

Framing of charge (section 228)

After consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge thinks that case has ground
for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is
not exclusively triable by the Court of Session. He may order transfer of the case to
the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class. He
may also direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or the
Judicial Magistrate of the first class. Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance
with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report;
exclusively triable by the Court of session, he shall frame in writing a charge against
the accused.
Where the Judge frames any charge, the charge shall read and explained to the
accused. The accused shall asked to confess the offence or crime.

Second Stage
Conviction on a plea of guilty (section 229)

Under section 229 of Cr.P.C. an accused may plead guilty before the Court and
upon such pleading, the Court on his discretion may convict the accused. The
accused should plead guilty by his own mouth and not through his pleader or
counsel.Any admission made by his pleader is not binding on him. The plea of guilty
only amounts to an admission that the accused committed the acts alleged against
him. It is not an admission of guilt under any particular section of the criminal statute.

Date for prosecution evidence (Section 230)

If the accused refuses to plead, or does not plead, or claims to tried or not convicted
under section 229, the Judge shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses. On
application of the prosecution, issue any process for compelling the attendance of
any witness or the production of any document or other thing.

Evidence for prosecution (section 231)

On the date so fixed, the Judge shall ask for all such evidence which needs in
support of the prosecution. The Judge may also permit the cross-examination of any
witness. Until any other witness or witnesses have examined or recall any witness
for further cross-examination.

Third Stage

It is the last stage of the trial where the accused is either convicted or acquitted.

Acquittal (section 232)

Under section 232 of the Code, an accused can be acquitted if the Court after
hearing both the parties and considering all the evidence, considers that there is no
evidence which proves the commission of the alleged offence by the accused.If the
accused is not acquitted then the Judge calls upon him to enter on his defence. This
provision is mandatory. An omission on the part of the Judge to do so occasions
failure of justice.The accused in his defence may apply for issue of any process to
compel the attendance of any witness or production any documents. A Judge is
required to consider all such applications but can also refuse it if the Judge has
reasons to believe that such application is vexatious or is made for the purpose of
defeating the ends of justice.

Entering upon defence (section 233)

The accused may called upon to present his defence, if not acquitted under section
232. He also needs to produce evidence in support. The Judge may file any written
statement produced by the accused, as record.

If the accused applies for compelling the presence of any witness or the production
of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process. Unless he considers
that such application should refused as made for the purpose of vexation or delay or
for defeating the purpose of justice.

Arguments ( section 234)

The examination of witnesses (if any) for the defence gets complete. Then the
prosecutor shall sum up his case and the accused or his pleader shall entitled to
reply. Provided that where any question of law raised by the accused or his pleader.
The prosecution may submit his statement on such a question of law.

Judgment of acquittal or conviction ( section 235)

A Court after hearing the arguments shall pronounce the judgment under section 235
of the Code. An accused may be either acquitted or convicted. The acquittal will be
done as per the procedure embodied under section 232 but the judgment for
conviction will be pronounced in accordance with section 235. A judge shall pass the
sentence of conviction according to law.

Previous conviction (Section 236)

In a case where a previous conviction is charged under the provisions of

Sub-Section (7) of section 211, and the accused does not admit that he has been
previously convicted as alleged in the charge, the Judge may, after he has convicted
the said accused under section 229 or section 235, take evidence in respect of the
alleged previous conviction, and shall record a finding thereon. Provided that no
such charge shall be read out by the Judge nor shall the accused be asked to plead
thereto nor shall the previous conviction be referred to by the prosecution or in any
evidence adduced by it, unless and until the accused has been convicted under
section 229 or section 235.

Difference between acquittal and discharge

A discharge takes place where there is nc prima facie case made out against the
accused and he has not been put on his defence, nor any charge framed against him
to which he could plead. But after the accused has been called upon to enter on his
defence or a charge has been framed against him on a prima facie rase having been
made
out by the prosecution, the accused can ether be convicted or acquitted but not
discharged.

(2) A man who is discharged may again be charged with the same offence if other
testimony should be discovered Sec. 437 but a man who has been
acquitted cannot be put on his trial again for the offence of which he has been
acquitted. (Sec. 403).

3 An order of discharge is not judgment, but order of an acquittal is in the nature of a

judgment.

4) An order of acquittal is judgment which is always final. Whereas order of

discharge leaves the matter indefinite for all purposes of judicial Inquiry.

5) A discharge is a defence against fresh proceedings only it fresh facts and better
evidence are not available against the accused. An acquittal by a court of competent
jurisdiction bars a retrial for the same offence based on the same facts even if fresh
facts and better evidence is discovered, or on the same facts for any other offence
for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made
under section 221 (1) or for which he might have been convicted under section
221(2), CrPC.

6) A discharge takes place before formal framing of the charges and before the
accused is called upon to enter into his defence. An order of acquittal is passed only
when charges have been framed and the accused has been tried on the charges so
framed and he has been called upon to enter into his defence and has disproved the
prosecution story.

7) Discharge does not establish the innocence of the accuser but it only means that
no prima facie case could be made out to justify further inquiry in respect of the
accusations. An order of acquittal establishes the innocence of the accused as it is a
sentence of not guilty. It amounts to absolution of a party charged with an offence. It
is recorded after judgement. Section 300 of the video lays down that a person once
acquitted cannot be tried for the same offence.

CONCLUSION:

In this way, we went through almost all forms of

complexities that are involved in case of a trial
before a Sessions Court. In the beginning, it is
decided whether there is any cause for trial or not.
Next, it is seen, if there are sufficient grounds to
convict through cross-examination, pieces of
evidence etc. and lastly the accused is acquitted or
sentenced as the case may be.
PLEA BARGAINING ( SEC 265 A - 265 C )

Introduction : The famous saying “Justice delayed is justice denied” holds utmost
significance when the concept of Plea bargaining is discussed. The number of cases
pending in the courts is shocking but at the same time, it has been normalized by
people. These astonishing figures are no more astonishing because people have
started accepting this as their fate. The concept of plea bargaining was not there in
criminal law since its inception. Considering this scenario, Indian Legal scholars and
Jurists incorporated this concept in Indian Criminal Law. As the term itself suggests
that it is an agreement between the accused and the prosecutor. Many countries
have accepted this concept in their Criminal Justice System (CJS).

Meaning of Plea Bargaining

Plea bargaining is a pretrial negotiation between the accused and the prosecution
where the accused agrees to plead guilty in exchange for certain concessions by the
prosecution. It is a bargain where a defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge and
the prosecutors in return drop more serious charges. It is not available for all types of
crime e.g. a person cannot claim plea bargaining after committing heinous crimes or
for the crimes which are punishable with death or life imprisonment.

History of Plea Bargaining

In the Jury System, the need for plea bargaining was not felt because there was no
legal representation. Later on, in 1960 legal representation was allowed and the
need for Plea Bargaining was felt. Although the traces of the origin of the concept of
Plea Bargaining is in American legal history. This concept has been used since the
19th century. Judges used this bargaining to encourage confessions.

Plea Bargaining in India

Plea Bargaining is not an indigenous concept of Indian legal system. It is a part of

the recent development of Indian Criminal Justice System (ICJS). It was inculcated
in Indian Criminal Justice System after considering the burden of long-standing
cases on the Judiciary.

Criminal Procedure Code and Plea Bargaining

Section 265A to 265L, Chapter XXIA of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with the
concept of Plea Bargaining. It was inserted into the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,
2005. It allows plea bargaining for cases:

● Where the maximum punishment is imprisonment for 7 years;

 ● Where the offenses don’t affect the socio-economic condition of the country;

● When the offenses are not committed against a woman or a child below 14
are excluded

The 154th Report of the Law Commission was first to recommend the ‘plea
bargaining’ in Indian Criminal Justice System. It defined Plea Bargaining as an
alternative method which should be introduced to deal with huge arrears of criminal
cases in Indian courts.

Then under the NDA government, a committee was constituted which was headed
by the former Chief Justice of the Karnataka and Kerala High Courts, Justice
V.S.Malimath to tackle the issue of escalating number of criminal cases. The
Malimath Committee recommended for the plea bargaining system in India. The
committee said that it would facilitate the expedite disposal of criminal cases and
reduce the burden of the courts. Moreover, the Malimath Committee pointed out the
success of plea bargaining system in the USA to show the importance of Plea
Bargaining.

Accordingly, the draft Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2003 was introduced in the
parliament and finally it became an enforceable Indian law from enforceable from
July 5, 2006. It sought to amend the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC), the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and the Indian Evidence Act, 1892 to improve
upon the existing Criminal Justice System in the country, which is inundated with a
plethora of criminal cases and overabundant delay in their disposal on the one hand
and very low rate of conviction in cases involving serious crimes on the other. The
Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2003 focused on following key issues of the criminal
justice system:-

(i) Witnesses turning hostile

(ii) Plea-bargaining

(iii) Compounding the offense under Section 498A, IPC (Husband or relative of
husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and

(iv) Evidence of scientific experts in cases relating to fake currency notes.

Finally, it introduced Chapter XXIA Section 265A to 265L and brought the concept of
plea bargaining in India. The following are provisions which it added:-
Section 265-A (Application of Chapter)

The plea bargaining shall be available to an accused who is charged with any
offense other than offenses punishable with death or imprisonment or for life or of
imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years. Section 265 A (2) of the Code gives
the power to notify the offenses to the Central Government.

Section 265-B (Application for Plea Bargaining)

● A person accused of an offense may file the application of plea bargaining in

trails which are pending.

● The application for plea bargaining is to be filed by the accused containing

brief details about the case relating to which such application is filed. It
includes the offences to which the case relates and shall be accompanied by
an affidavit sworn by the accused stating therein that he has voluntarily
preferred the application, the plea bargaining the nature and extent of the
punishment provided under the law for the offence, the plea bargaining in his
case that he has not previously been convicted by a court in a case in which
he had been charged with the same offence.

● The court will thereafter issue the notice to the public prosecutor concerned,
investigating officer of the case, the victim of the case and the accused of the
date fixed for the plea bargaining.

● When the parties appear, the court shall examine the accused in-camera
wherein the other parties in the case shall not be present, with the motive to
satisfy itself that the accused has filed the application voluntarily.

Section 265-C (Guidelines for Mutually satisfactory disposition)

It lays down the procedure to be followed by the court in mutually satisfactory

disposition. In a case instituted on a police report, the court shall issue the notice to
the public prosecutor concerned, investigating officer of the case, and the victim of
the case and the accused to participate in the meeting to work out a satisfactory
disposition of the case. In a complaint case, the Court shall issue a notice to the
accused and the victim of the case.

Types of Plea Bargaining

Plea Bargaining is generally of three types namely:-

 ● Sentence bargaining;
● Charge bargaining;
● Fact bargaining.

Conclusion

The concept of plea bargaining is not entirely new in India. Indian has already
recognized it when it got its constitution in 1950. Article 20(3) of Indian constitution
prohibits self-incrimination. People accuse plea bargaining of violatory of the said
article. But with the passage of time considering the encumbrance on the courts, the
Indian court has felt the need of Plea bargaining in Indian legal system. When a
change is brought it is hard to accept it initially but society needs to grow so is our
legal system. Everything has advantages and disadvantages and both have to be
analyzed in order to reach a sound conclusion. Rejecting something only on the
basis of its disadvantages would not be justified in any case. The concept of plea
bargaining is evolving in India and it is not appropriate to expect it to be perfect. It
can only be improved by debate, discussions, and discourses.
LIMITATION FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE OF CERTAIN OFFENCES ( SEC. 467 -
473 )

Introduction

Criminal law has always been one of the most important branches of law because it
deals with the most serious offences and it helps to protect the society from falling
into the state of anarchy. It consists of two branches- procedural and substantive
law.

Procedural law provides machinery for the implementation of substantive criminal

law. Substantive law provides a different kind of offence and the punishment which is
imposed on the offenders. If there is no procedural law, the substantive laws are of
no use because no one will be able to know the way how the offenders will be
prosecuted and they will be let off. So from this, we can conclude that both the law
are complementary with each other.

The main objective of criminal procedure is to provide a full and fair trial to the
accused by taking into consideration the principles of natural justice. There are
various processes that need to be followed to administer justice includes pre-trial
procedure lawsuits, answering a complaint, motion, discovery etc.. Trial procedure
including cognizance of offence, beginning of proceedings, review of the procedure
and finally arriving at a decision.

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is a separate chapter which talks about
“taking cognizance of offence by the Magistrate”. The power empowered on the
Magistrate is not absolute; it also puts certain restrictions given under Section 195 to
197 of the Code. Section 190 and 193 talks about the mode for taking cognizance.

We are going to emphasis onlimitations for taking cognizance of an offence. It is

prescribed in Chapter XXXVI ( from Section 467 to 473 ) of the Code itself.

Meaning of cognizance

The word cognizance has origin from the old French term “connaissance” which
means “ recognition, wisdom, knowledge, familiarity“ and also from the word
“conoistre“ which means “ to know “ and from the Anglo-Norman word “conysance“
which has the meaning “later, recognition, knowledge”. It is derived from the Latin
word “cognosis” where the con means to “with“ and “gnosis” means “to know”.

The word ‘Cognizance’ has not been defined in the procedural law but the meaning
of cognizance is derived from the number of precedents and judicial
pronouncements. The dictionary meaning of cognizance is “taking account of“,
“taking note of“, “to gain knowledge about”, “to have knowledge regarding something
“. If we see the legal meaning of cognizance,

It is the power or authority of the court or the “taking judicial notice by court of law
having jurisdiction on an action, matter or a cause for the purpose of deciding
whether there is any ground for the initiation of proceedings and deciding of the
matter or cause judicially“.

In the case of R.R Chari vs State of U.P, the Supreme Court held that the
cognizance occurs when the court applies his judicial mind to the suspicious cause
of action but it is not necessary to take any indeed or formal action.

The purpose of enacting such provision is not to extinguish but to avoid the
unnecessary delay in filing a complaint by the complainant.

Cognizance of any offence is taken by:

● Magistrate under Section 191.

● Court of Session under Section 193.

Limits To Take Cognizance Of Offences

It is a well-established fact that the power vested on Magistrate to take Cognizance

of offence is not an absolute power and is subjected to the limitations which have
been provided in the Chapter XXXVI( section 467 to 473 ) of the Act itself.

Non Applicability of this Chapter

The provision of this Chapter is not applicable in the case of certain economic
offences.

Definitions Section 467

This section is inserted with the purpose of determining the limitations and scope
that exists with regard to the specified period of taking cognizance of an offence as
provided under Section 468.

For the purpose of this chapter, “ period of limitation ” is prescribed as the period
specified for taking the cognizance of offence as specified in Section 468 unless the
context otherwise requires.
Infringement of the prescribed period specified in Section 468 will be considered as
ultra vires to the Section unless the exceptional circumstances otherwise provide or
amendment has been made in the Code changing the above laws.

Section 468: Bar to take the Cognizance of an offence

No Court shall take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the prescribed period
as specified in subsection (2)
The period of limitation shall be:

Offence punishable with Period of Limitation

Fine only 6 months
Imprisonment not exceeding 1 year 1 year

Imprisonment:

Minimum of 1 year 3 years

Maximum of 3 years

In computing the period of limitation for the offence when two offences are tried
together; the period of limitation shall be determined in pursuance of the offence
which is punishable with the more severe punishment or the most severe
punishment.

Non- Applicability of Section 468

In the case of Nirmal Kanti Roy vs State of West Bengal, (1998) Cr LJ 3282 (SC),
the Supreme Court held that Section 468 is not applicable to an offence under
Section 7 (1) (A) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

In the Case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs Tara Dutta, AIR 2000 SC 297, the
Court held:

“ the language of subsection (3) of section 468 gives a clear view that period of
limitation that is provided under Section 468 is in pursuance of the alleged offence
charged but it is not used in respect of offence which is finally proved.”

In the case of Venkappa Gurappa Hosur vs Kasawwa (1997), the Court held that:

“ once the period of limitation begins to continue, it continues its full course.”
Section 469: Beginning of period of limitation

The period of limitation commences from the following points:

● On the day when the offence was committed

● When the person aggrieved by the act had no knowledge regarding the
commission of the offence or the police officer; it begins on the day when it
comes to the knowledge of the aggrieved party or police making an
investigation into the case whichever is earlier.

● When the person who has committed an act is unknown or not being
identified, the first date on which the accused was known either to the
aggrieved person or to the police officer making an investigation into the case
whichever is earlier.

The day from which such period of limitation begins shall be excluded for the
purpose of this Chapter. It means that the first day from which the period of limitation
begins to be calculated shall not be included while computing the period of limitation.
Let us understand from the example:

The offence punishable only with the fine was committed on 1st May 2019. The
period of limitation begins from 2nd May 2019 and not from 1st May 2019.

In the case of State of Rajasthan vs Sanjay Kumar,1998 Cri LJ 256 (SC), the
Court stated that the period of limitation will not commence from the date when the
sample was taken but from the date when the report of Public Analysts was received
in case of adulteration.

Section 470: Exclusion of Time in certain cases

This section provides the period which shall not be included in computing the period
of limitation.

The period of limitation that is to be excluded in computing the period of limitation is

explained below:

● The time during which such person is prosecuting another prosecution with
due diligence whether it is a court of Appeal, or in the Court of first instance
against the offender.
Such period will not be excluded unless another prosecution is related to the same
circumstances or the facts of the case for which the previous prosecution has been
initiated or the court in which the previous proceeding has been being is unable to
entertain the case due to lack of jurisdiction.

In the case where the institution of proceeding is stayed by the order or injunction,
the time shall exclude:

● The period during the continuance of such order or injunction.

● The day on which it was made or was issued.
● The day on which it was withdrawn.

In a case where the notice of prosecution of offence is given or the previous consent
or sanction of the Government is mandatory under this law or any other law for the
time being in force the time during which:-

● The period of notice or;

● The period for obtaining the consent or sanction of the Government shall be
excluded.
● It also specifies that the time which is required for taking the sanction or
permission from the Government or any other authority - -The date on which
the application was made for taking the consent or sanction and ;

The date on which the permission or the consent was granted shall be excluded.

In computing the period of limitation such period is to be excluded

● The time during which the offender is absent from India or from any territory
which is outside from India but is under the administration of the Central
Government.

● The time during which the offender has avoided arrest either by concealing
himself or either by absconding.

Section 471: Exclusion of date on which court is closed:

The day when the Court is closed is excluded from being accredited to the specified
period of limitation.

It is a rule that in the case when the period of limitation expires on the day of the
closure of court proceedings the cognizance of an offence is taken when the court
reopens.
When the court closes on normal working hours for a particular period it is presumed
that the Court has been closed for the same day.

Section 472: When the offence continues:

When the offences continue or are in the process of happening; fresh limitation
begins to run at every moment, the offence is replicated throughout the full term that
it continues.

Section 473: Extension of Period in Certain Cases:

This section is the pivotal section as it focuses on administering justice. It gives a

chance to the complainant or the aggrieved person to institute the suit even after the
expiry of the prescribed period of limitation.

In normal circumstances, the case is not to be instituted after the expiry of the
prescribed period but in exceptional circumstances, the court allows for the institution
of the suit.

Discretion of the Court

It is the discretion of the Court to extend the period of limitation. This section does
not mandate the court to extend the period of limitation.

Conditions:

When the court is satisfied with the facts and circumstances of the case that
complainant was prevented by sufficient cause from not appearing before the Court
within the prescribed period of limitation.

The cause of the delay is properly explained and the court is satisfied with it.

The court is of the opinion that it is necessary to extend the period in the interest of
justice.
The same provision is also explained in the Limitation Act.

The Limitation Act

Section 5: Extension of the period in Certain Cases

Even in the civil case, the court has a discretionary power to extend the period of
limitation when the court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not appearing
within the prescribed period or that the cause of the reason was sufficiently
explained or that it is necessary to do in the interest of justice.

In the case of Srinivas Pal vs Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh SC 1729,

the Court held that:

“It is not mandatory to determine whether the extension of the period of limitation
under Section 473 must precede of taking cognizance of the offence.”

Conclusion

With the passage of time, the evidence deteriorates, the accused may become
unidentified, the circumstances might be changed. So the suit may be brought within
a specified period so that the lawyers can find the evidence, the situation of the
accused does not change. It was not possible to bring the suit within the appropriate
time so for this purpose Chapter, XXXVI was enacted. It is not brought to extinguish
the rights of the person but it is brought to avoid the unnecessary delay in instituting
a suit.
CR.P.C. CASE LAWS
The State of Bihar vs Chandra Bhushan Cr.P.C. S.2(d) Charge sheet by RPF officer
Singh & Ors. AIR 2001 Supreme Court for offence under Railway Property Act can
429 be treated as complaint of the RPF
Attiq-Ur-Rehman Vs.Municipal Cr.P.C. S.4 In absence of special court the
Corporation of Delhi and regular court can try the offence
anotherAIR1996SC1267
Thomas DanaVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.4 The words Punishment and
PunjabAIR1959SC375 Penalty are explained in
Republic of Italy thr. Ambassador and Cr.P.C. S.4 Union Govt was directed to
Ors.Vs.Union of India (UOI) and constitute special court
Ors.2013(1)SCALE462
Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patelvs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.4(2) When the special statute does
Gujarat and Anr.AIR2001SC567 not prescribe procedure Cr.P.C. is applicable
In Re_ Sikandarkhan Mahomedkhan Cr.P.C. S.9 Additional Sessions Judge can
1920(22)BOMLR200 hear appeal
EmperorVs.Lakshman Chavji Cr.P.C. S.9(3) 194 and 409 Assistant and
NarangikarAIR1931Bom313 Additional Sessions Judges exercise
jurisdiction of Sessions Court but they are
separate Courts
Praphakar Vs. The State of Maha 2012 Cr.P.C. S.28 Assistant Sessions Judge should
Cri.L.J.4726 not be allotted with case punishable with
more than 10 years
Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel vs The State Of Cr.P.C. S.29 and S.138 NI Act Magistrate
Gujarat AIR 2001 SC 567 has no pecuniary limit for compensation
Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel vs The State Of Cr.P.C. S.29 Magistrate has no pecuniary
Gujarat AIR 2001 SC 567 limit for compensation
Shidlingappa Cr.P.C. S.31 Aggregate fine should be
GurulingappaVs.EmperorAIR1926Bom416 considered for the purpose of appeal
Chatar Singh vs State Of Cr.P.C. S.31 Aggregate sentence not to
M.P.AIR2007SC319 exceed 14 years when consecutive SC says
Hariom @ Kalicharan Shiriram and anr Vs. Cr.P.C. S.31 and 427(1) Accused convicted
the State of Maharashtra 1994(2) Bom in 3 cases His sentence of 22 years brought
C.R.219 down by giving concurrence in two cases
Emperor vs Piru Rama Havaldar27 Cr.P.C. S.31 and IPC S.71 separate sentences
BOMLR 1371 are subject to the provisions of Section 71,
Indian Penal Code
Jagat Bahadur Singh Jagat Bahadur Cr.P.C. S.31 Appellate court can inflict the
SinghVs.State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR Trial Court's limited punishment only
1966 SC 945
Reg.Vs.Tukaya Bin TamanaILR1875 1 Cr.P.C. S.31 For S.457 and 380 IPC
Bom 214 Sentence may be either for both or for one
but should not greater
Sunil Anandrao Sawant vs Government Of Cr.P.C. S.31 Separate sentence to run
Maharashtra 2010CriLJ3579 consecutive after life has been discussed
Nanak ChandVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.34 AND 149 Distinction is
PunjabAIR1955SC274 explained
detention D.K. Basu Vs State of West Cr.P.C. S.41 and Constitution A.21
Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610 Directions w.r.t. arrest and
R.P. VaghelaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.41 and Contempt of Courts Act
Gujarat2002CriLJ3082 S.10 Mere handcuffing without prior
permission, in justifiable circumstances does
not amount to contempt
Afak Shabbir Khan vs The State Of Cr.P.C. S.41 Mentioning reasons in the arrest
Maharashtra & Anr panchanama is held sufficient compliance of
2013BomCR(Cri)242(DB) recording reasons for arrest
Arnesh KumarVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.41(1) and 41A and S.498A of IPC
BiharAIR2014SC2756 Directions to police and Magistrates
ManikandanVs.S. I. of Police, Nallalam Cr.P.C. S.41(1)(d) Accused needs to bailed
Police Stn2008CriLJ1338 or not is discussed
Joginder KumarVs.State of U.P. and Cr.P.C. S.56(1) Magistrate to ensure
Ors.(1994)4SCC260 compliance of directions given
Jayendragiri Anandgiri Cr.P.C. S.57 Accused in NCB custody
GoswamiVs.Narcotics Control Bureau and arrested in another crime should be produced
Anr.2005CriLJ3190 before magistrate within 24 hours
Gajanan P. Lasure Vs. The Director Cr.P.C. S.57 and deemed suspension of
General of Police and ors 2009(4) accused public servant
Mh.L.J.399
Raghuvansh Dewanchand BhasinVs.State Cr.P.C. S.70 and 71 No Arrest on cancelled
of Maharashtra and AnrAIR2011SC3393 warrant. Warrant register be maintained
State Through Cbi vs Dawood Ibrahim Cr.P.C. S.73 Warrant can be issued before
Kaskar AIR1997SC2494 charge sheet and for investigation purpose
Shaikh RahemanVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.79 Magistrate can issue warrant for
Maharashtra1991(1)BomCR263 execution beyond his local jurisdiction
M.P. Sharma and Ors.Vs.Satish Cr.P.C. S.93 and 94 Search and Seizure from
ChandraAIR1954SC300 accused not violative of fundamental rights
State of GujaratVs.Shyamlal Mohanlal Cr.P.C. S.94 is not applicable to accused
Choksi MANU-SC-0383-1964
State of Gujarat Vs. Shyamlal Mohanlal Cr.P.C. S.94(1) Power to issue summons to
Choksi AIR 1965 SC 1251 produce document is not applicable to
accused
Pravinsingh and anotherVs.Biharilal Singh Cr.P.C. S.97 Search can be conducted in a
and another 1989 Cri LJ 1386) (Bom) place other than mentioned in warrant
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and Cr.P.C. S.100 and S.27 Evi Act Witnesses
Another, 2001 Cri.L.J. 504 not required
Khet SinghVsUnion of India Cr.P.C. S.100 Seizure panchanama prepared
(UOI)AIR2002SC1450 at customs office instead of spot did not
cause prejudice Hence relied
State Of Maharashtra & Ors.Vs.Sudhir Cr.P.C. S.100 Whether immovable property
Vasant Karnataki Etc. Etc.MANU-SCOR- is included or not referred to larger bench
47069-2014
State Govt. of NCT of DelhiVs.Sunil and Cr.P.C. S.100(5) and Evi Act S.27 Witnesses
Another2001CriLJ504 is not required
Bombay HC Full bench Sudhir Vasant Cr.P.C. S.102(1) Property does not include
KarnatakiVs.The State of Maharashtra immovable property
2011 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 326 _ 2011 ALL
MR (Cri) 96
Sunder Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh Cr.P.C. S.103 Applicable to search of a place
AIR1956SC411 and not of a person. Hence, independent
witnesses not necessary
Suresh NandaVs.C.B.I.AIR2008SC1414 Cr.P.C. S.104 Passport can be impounded by
Passport Authority and not by Police
The State of Maharashtra and Cr.P.C. S.107 and 116 No provision to ask
Anr.Vs.Mangali Dewaiyya for interim bond
Pupalla1994MhLJ483
Rajesh Suryabhan NayakVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.107 and 123 No interim bond and
Maharashtra2006(5)MhLj243 CJM reduced bond
Pramila Navin ShahVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.107 No provision to ask for interim
Maharashtra & bond
Ors2005(15)CriminalCC1051
Dattatraya Mahadu TikkalVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.107 Sessions Judge has to interfere
Maharashtra2014(1)BomCR(Cri)439 if action is illegal
Pravin Vijaykumar Taware,Vs.The Special Cr.P.C. S.116 Training to Executive
Executive Magistrate Magistrates directed by High Court
2009(111)BOMLR3166
Rajesh Suryabhan NayakVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.123(2) and (3) CJM exercised
Maharashtra, 2006(5)MhLj243 jurisdiction
Noor Saba Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Quasim Cr.P.C. S.125 and S.3 of MWPOD Act
AIR 1997 SC 3280 Rights of mior children and unmarried
daughter are protected
Mohd. Ahmed KhanVs.Shah Bano Begum Cr.P.C. S.125 applicable to Muslim divorced
and OrsAIR1985SC945 women also
Allabuksh Karim ShaikhVs.Smt. Cr.P.C. S.125 application for muslim child is
Noorjahan Allabuksh Shaikh and tenable
another1994MhLJ1376
Smt. Saroj Govind Mukkawar Vs.Smt. Cr.P.C. S.125 Daughter in law was directed
Chandrakalabai Polshetwar to maintain mother in law
2009(4)MhLj665
Nandlal Wasudeo BadwaikVs.Lata Nandlal Cr.P.C. S.125 DNA Test prevails over the
Badwaik and Anr.AIR2014SC932 presumption
Bakulabai and Anr.Vs.Gangaram and Cr.P.C. S.125 Illegitimate child is entitled for
Anr.(1988)1SCC537 maintenance
Jaiminiben Hirenbhai VyasVs.Hirenbhai Cr.P.C. S.125 Judgment shall contain reasons
Rameshchandra VyasDecided On_ for finding for grant of maintenance from the
19.11.2014 date of application
Jagdish JugtawatVs.Manju Lata and Cr.P.C. S.125 Maintenance by Family Court
Ors.(2002)5SCC422 to major daughter was upheld
Shivaji Baburao Bhabad @ Bhawad Cr.P.C. S.125 Major son is not entitled for
Vs.Sau. Alka Shivaji Bhabad Criminal maintenance
Writ Petition No. 955 of 2009 decided on
14.01.2010
Jagir SinghVs.Ranbir Singh and Cr.P.C. S.125 Major son though student is
Anr.AIR1979SC381 not entitled for maintenance from father
Chinnappaiyan ChellandiVs.Chinnathayee Cr.P.C. S.125 Permission granted to amend
Chinnappaiyan2010(1)Crimes835 petition
Sau. Manda R. Thaore Vs. Sh. Ramaji Cr.P.C. S.125 Second wifes maintenance
Ghanshyam Thaore Criminal Revision rejected but compensation granted in revision
Application No. 317-2006Decided On_
20.04.2010
Syed Mohsin Ali Syed Shaukat AliVs.Smt. Cr.P.C. S.125 Talaq must be for reasonable
Noorus Saher MANU-MH-0996-2005 cause and be preceded by attempts at
reconciliation
Savitaben Somabhai BhatiyaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.125 Woman married by Hindu man
Gujarat and Ors.AIR2005SC1809 having living spouse is not entitled for
mainteance
Shantha @ Ushadevi and Anr.Vs.B.G. Cr.P.C. S.125(3) Successive applications are
ShivananjappaAIR2005SC2410 unnecessary and Limitation is not barred
when the arrears upto date are included by
interim application
Rajesh Bhiwaji NandeVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.125(3) Successive orders of one
Maharashtra and Ors.2005(2)MhLj977 month imprisonment upheld
Dalip SinghVs.RajbalaII(2007)DMC273 Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Adultery defence not
applicable after divorce
Dalip SinghVs.RajbalaII(2007)DMC273 Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Adultery not applicable to
divorcee
Gita Vs. Chandrasekhar Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Divorced on cruelty ground
is till entitled for maintenance
M. Chinna Cr.P.C. S.125(4) includes adultery by
KaruppasamyVs.Kanimozhi2015ALLMR( divorced wife
Cri)615
Chanda Preetam WadateVs.Preetam Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Isolated instance of adultery
Ganpatrao Wadate 2002(2)MhLj482 is not sufficient to deny maintenance
Vanamala (Smt)Vs.H.M. Ranganatha Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Wife does not include
Bhatta(1995)5SCC299 divorcee
Ashok Yeshwant SamantVs.Smt. Suparna Cr.P.C. S.127(1) Precondition to deposit
Ashok Samant and another1991CriLJ766 arrears cannot be put
Ahmed Noormohmed BhattiVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.151 is not ultravires merely
Gujarat and Ors.AIR2005SC2115 because it can be misused
Rajesh Ramrao Raut Vs. The State of Cr.P.C. S.151(3)_
Maharashtra and Ors. 2003 Cri.L.J
Anju ChaudharyVs.State of U.P. and Cr.P.C. S.154 and 156(3) If the offence is
Anr.2013CriLJ776 same there cannot be two FIRs. Magistrate
can treat application as a complaint
Satvinder Kaur Vs.State (Govt. of N.C.T. Cr.P.C. S.154 and 177 The IO can forward
of Delhi)AIR1999SC3596 the FIR to the police station having
jurisdiction if the offence was beyond own
jurisdictiono
UshabenVs.Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada Cr.P.C. S.154 and 198A Police can
and Ors.2012ACR1859 investigate S.494 with 498A of IPC as
S.498A is cognizable
GaneshaVs.Sharanappa and Cr.P.C. S.154 and 354 The person who
anr.AIR2014SC1198 lodges the FIR be called the Informant and
not the Complainant
M. Narayandas vs State Of Karnataka And Cr.P.C. S.154 FIR reasonableness or
Ors.,2004 Cri.L.J. 822, Credibility of the said information is not a
condition precedent for registration of a case
BabubhaiVs.State of Gujarat and Cr.P.C. S.154 For deciding tenability of two
Ors.(2010)12SCC254 FIRs sameness test should be applied
Ashi Devi and Ors.Vs.State (NCT of Cr.P.C. S.154 In a 9 years old theft case held
Delhi)MANU-SC-0526-2014 that mere delay itself is not a ground to
discard a case
Gosu Jayarami Reddy Vs. State of A.P. Cr.P.C. S.154 Overwriting limited to
(2011) 11 SCC 766 converting 4 to 5 in FIR is immaterial.
GaneshaVs.Sharanappa and Cr.P.C. S.154 Person who lodges FIR is
anr.2014(11)SCALE541 called Informant and who files complaint is
called complainant
Mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta and etc.Vs.State Cr.P.C. S.154 Police cannot refuse to register
of Maharashtra and Anr.2011CriLJ1486 the F.I.R. under the pretext of preliminary
inquiry when cognizable offences are made
out
KumariVs.Govt. of U.P. and Cr.P.C. S.154 Police is bound to register
Ors.2014CriLJ470 F.I.R. Lalita
Satish Narayan SawantVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.154 police officer going to the
Goa2009CriLJ4655 place of occurrence to make some survey
does not amount to making an investigation
doc.
Mrs. Charu Kishor MehtaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.154 Police shall register FIR
Maharashtra and Addl. Commissioner of instead of ignoring as civil dispute
PoliceDecided On_ 00.11.2010
Sone Lal And Ors AIR 1978 SC 1142 Cr.P.C. S.154 Recording FIR is an official
act and has such presumption
Charu Kishor Mehta and etc. etc.Vs.State Cr.P.C. S.154 Reliability genuineness and
of Maharashtra and Anr.2011CriLJ1486 credibility of the information are not the
conditions precedent Mrs.
Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and Ors. vs. Cr.P.C. S.154
State of Karnataka and Ors
M. Narayandas vs State Of Karnataka And Cr.P.C. S.154 Sections 195 and 340 do not
Ors.,2004 Cri.L.J. 822 come in the way of investigation by police.
On the basis of such investigation the Court
can file a complaint
Surender Kaushik and Ors.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.154 There cannot be two FIRs of
Uttar Pradesh and Ors.AIR2013SC3614 the same person of same incident
Surender Kaushik and Ors.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.154 When a FIR is already there
Uttar Pradesh and Ors.AIR2013SC3614 sameness test shall be used for the
subsequent FIRs
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Cr.P.C. S.154 When can the Court pass
Lal And Ors1992 AIR 604 appropriate orders
Satish Narayan SawantVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.154 When information was cryptic
Goa2009CriLJ4655 the police officer going to the place of
occurrence to make some survey is not an
investigation
Pravin Chandra ModyVs.State of Andhra Cr.P.C. S.155 Police can investigate a non-
PradeshAIR1965SC1185 cognizable offence under EC Act along with
S.420 IPC
Dashrath Kishan Kotkar and Anr.Vs.State Cr.P.C. S.155(2) and (3) Once permission is
of Maharashtra1986MhLJ986 obtained the procedure applicable to
cognazable offences is applicable
Vithal Puna Koli (Shirsath) and Ors. Vs. Cr.P.C. S.155(2) Obtaining Magistrate's
The State of Maharashtra-MH-0633-2006 permission is necessary
State of Maharashtra vs. Dharmendra Cr.P.C. S.155(2) permission was not
Ambar Mohite (10.09.1998 - BOMHC) obtained Hence prosecution for offence of
S.145 Police Act was held untenable
MukhedkarVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.155(2) Prosecution for S.124 of
Maharashtra,1983CriLJ1833 Bom Police Act quashed for want of
permission Avinash Madhukar
Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane Vs.Chandrasen Cr.P.C. S.156 and 397 156(3) of Cr.PC
Jagdevrao Deshmuk 2008CriLJ376 merely mean that an alleged cognizable
offence should be investigated
Atul Son of Shridhar KapleVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.156 S.173(3) and s.190(1)(c).
Maharashtra, through Police Station
Officer2011 113 BOMLR1549
Sakiri VasuState of U.P. and others and Cr.P.C. S.156
other cases MANY CASES
Pravin Chandra ModyVs.State of Andhra Cr.P.C. S.156(1) and 173 Police officer can
PradeshAIR1965SC1185 investigate E.C. Act offence along with
S.420
Sheshrao and Ors.Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.156(1) Charge sheet quashed for
Maharashtra and Ors.24.07.2015 want of jurisdiction
Satvinder Kaur Vs.State (1999)8SCC728 Cr.P.C. S.156(2) Police can investigate any
cognizable offence and to submit charge
sheet before competent court
Alpic Finance Ltd.vsP. Sadasivan and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and IPC S.420 It must also
Anr.AIR2001SC1226 be shown that there existed a fraudulent and
dishonest intention at the time of commission
of the offence
Vinay TyagiVs.Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 173(8) Kinds of order
Ors. 2013CriLJ754 under S.156(3) are (i) Initial Investigation,
(ii) Further Investigation, (iii) Fresh or de
novo or re-investigation-Detail
Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 190 Passing order of
Assam and Anr.1961CriLJ39(3JJs) S.156(3) or Search Warrant is not taking
Cognizance
(R.R. Chari etc followed )Gopal Das Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 190 Taking Cognizance
Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of Assam and on complaint means verification etc.
Anr.1961CriLJ39
Nirmaljit Singh HoonVs.The State of West Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 200 Cognizance means
BengalAIR1972SC2639 not mere applying mind but for the purpose
of proceeding under S.200 and following
privisions
SachinVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 200 Magistrate has
Maharashtra2014ALLMR(Cri)1833 discretion to reject the prayer and direct for
verification etc.
Ramdev Food Products Private LimitedVs. Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 202 No arrest in
State of Gujarat2015(3)SCALE622 investigation of S.202
Raghu Raj Singh RoushaVs.Shivam Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 397 Accused shall be
Sundaram Promoters ((2009)2SCC363 impleaded in a revision against order
refusing S.156
Shivaji Vithalrao BhikaneVs.Chandrasen Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 398 Interference in
Jagdevrao Deshmuk2008CriLJ3761 revision should be in exceptional cases
Vasanti DubeyVs.State ofMadhya Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and S.7 P.C. Act
Pradesh2012CriLJ1309
Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan Mohd. Vs. . Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and S.195 and S.341
Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. Abdul. 2012 Magistrate can order S.156(3) and after
Bom C R(Cri) 375 investigation he can file complaint
Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane Vs.Chandrasen Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and S.397 Direction by
Jagdevrao Deshmukh2008CriLJ3761 sessions judge for sending signature to the
expert set aside
U.P. HC in Chandrika SinghVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) application can be treated as
U.P2007CriLJ3169 complaint
Mrs Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Application should be
of UP & Ors2015 (96) SCC 287 supported by affidavit
Shivaji Vithalrao BhikaneVs.Chandrasen Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Before the order
Jagdevrao Deshmukh2008CriLJ3761 complainant cannot be asked to call experto
to prove forgery
Mohd. YousufVs.Smt. Afaq Jahan and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Complainant should not be
Anr.AIR2006SC705 examined before order under this section
Srinivas Gundluri and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Difference of s.156(3) and
Ors.Vs.SEPCO(2010)8SCC206 202 Cr.P.C. Mere direction to file charge
sheet not illegal
Upkar SinghVs.Ved Prakash and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Direction to register counter
Ors.AIR2004SC4320 FIR is valid
Madhubala Vs. Sureshkumar Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Format of order
AIR1997SC3104
Anju ChaudharyVs.State of U.P. and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate can treat an
Anr.2013CriLJ776 application as a complaint In more than one
FIRs sameness test has to be applied
CBI Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate cannot direct
State Of Gujarat MANU-GJ-0573-2001
Central Bureau of Investigation through Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate cannot direct the
S.P., Jaipurvs.State of Rajasthan & CBI investigation
Anr.AIR2001SC668
K. SelvarajVs.The Superintendent of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate cannot order
Police and The Inspector of Police investigation by the CBI
Sachin Raosaheb Jadhav Vs State of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate has discretion
Maharashtra Justice Nalawade not to refer to police and to inquire himself
into the application
Sukhwasi son of Hulasi Vs. State of Uttar Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate has discretion to
Pradesh 2008 Cri.L.J.472 send or not to send for investigation
Nilesh Daulatrao LakhaniVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) No cognizance on police
Maharashtra2014(4)BomCR(Cri)757 report after first directing for inquiry
R.P. Kapur vs. S.P. Singh AIR 1961 SC Cr.P.C. S.156(3) No order to CBI by
1117 Magistrate
Blue Dart Express Ltd.Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order after verification was
Maharashtra2011(2)Crimes46 set aside and directed to proceed
Yogiraj Vasantrao SurveVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order can be challenged in
Maharashtra2013ALLMR(Cri)2059 Revision
R.R. Chari Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Order does not amount to
AIR 1951 SC 207 taking cognizance 3 Judges Bench
Basanthi Sarkar and Ors.Vs.State of West Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order in S.193 IPC offence
Bengal and Ors.MANU-WB-0218-2010 upheld by Kolkata HC
General Officer CommandingVs.CBI and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order is not taking
Anr.AIR2012SC1890 cognizance
Shivaji Vithalrao Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Orders interference by
BhikaneVs.Chandrasen2008CriLJ3761 superior Courts normally be in very
exceptional circumstances
Ajit Ramrao Thete and others Vs. the State Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Original Complaint and
of Maharashtra and another Bombay (DB) order should be retained in Court
Mohd. YousufVs.Smt. Afaq Jahan and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Petition's Format and
Anr.2006(1)KLJ380 nomenclature is not material It can be treated
as complaint
Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Police investigation may
Ors.Vs.State of Karnataka and start with registration of FIR while in other
Ors.AIR2012SC2326 cases (CBI, etc.), an inquiry may lead to
registration of an FIR
Laxminarayan Vishwanath AryaThe State Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Police need not seek
of Maharashtra through Senior Inspector of permission of Magistrate to arrest accused
Police and Ors.Vs.2008CriLJ1
Raghu Raj Singh RoushaVs.Shivam Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Refusing direction for
Sundaram Promoters (P) L and investigation and direction for verification
Anr.(2009)2SCC363 and statements is taking cognizance
Karnataka HC Sri. B.V. Acharya, Vs.Sri. Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Sanction needed for even
N. Venkateshaiah order under section
Mr. Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani, Vs.The Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Simplicitor application
State of Maharashtra 2010 Cri.L.J. 2723 without FIR is tenable
Pinni Co-op Housing Society and others Cr.P.C. S.156(3) This section cannot be
Maruti Mathu Gaikwad and others Bom resorted to after direction to put up for
DB dd on 02.07.2013CRAPPLN463510 verification
Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) When can Magistrate
Ors.AIR2008SC907 Monitor investigation
Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) While passing the order the
Ors.(2008)5SCC668 Magistrate has to apply mind
Rasiklal Dalpatram ThakkarVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.156(5) and 181(4) Jurisdiction to
Gujarat and Ors.AIR2010SC715 be of the JMFC and not of the PSO
Mr. Panchabhai Popotbhai ButaniVs.The Cr.P.C. S.156(6) Application without prior
State of Maharashtra2010CriLJ2723 F.I.R. tenable
(2009) 6 SCC 576 Cr.P.C. S.156(6) No inherent power to recall
order
State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cr.P.C. S.157 No statutory bar to the
and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil informant-police officer for taking up the
Nadu vs. V. Jayapaul (22.03.2004 - investigation
SC)(2004)5SCC223
The State of Uttar PradeshVs.Bhagwant Cr.P.C. S.157 and PC Act Investigation can
Kishore JoshiAIR1964SC221 be started on information or otherwise means
without FIR
S.N. SharmaVs.Bipen Kumar Tiwari and Cr.P.C. S.159 does not enable Magistrate to
Ors.AIR1970SC786 stop investigation
S.N. SharmaVs.Bipen Kumar Tiwari and Cr.P.C. S.159 Gives limited power to
Ors.AIR1970SC786 Magistrate to direct investigate proceed
himself but no power to stop investigation
S.N. SharmaVs.Bipen Kumar Tiwari and Cr.P.C. S.159 Meant to give Magistrate the
Ors.AIR1970SC786 power of directing investigation where the
police decide not to investigate the case
under the proviso to Section 157(1)
Ashok DebbarmaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.161 and 154 Omission to name
Tripura(2014)4SCC747 accused when he was part of group is not
fatal
State of N.C.T. of Cr.P.C. S.161 and 162 and Evi Act S.145
DelhiVs.Mukesh(2013)2SCC58 Statement on TV channel subsequent to
 charge sheet is not covered Bipin Panchal
distinguished
Mahesh Janardhan GonnadeVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.161 and 164 Testimony of I.O. and
Maharashtra(2008)13SCC271 Spl Judl. Magi. cannot be disbelieved and
discredited
Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Cr.P.C. S.161 Every omission is not
DebbarmaVs.State of Tripura contradiction
(2014)4SCC747
State of GujaratVs.Kathi Ramku Cr.P.C. S.161 Inadmissible portions in the
Aligbhai1986CriLJ239 panchana should be marked by the APP and
excluded by the Juge and How to appreciate
witnesses
State of U.P.Vs.M.K. Cr.P.C. S.161 Signature of witness does not
AnthonyAIR1985SC48. render evidence inadmissible
AnthonyAIR1985SC48
Nirpal Singh and Ors.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.161 Statement of witness need not
HaryanaAIR1977SC1066 be there in inquest panchanama
Gujarat High Court Full Bench Nathu Cr.P.C. S.161 Statement reading over to
ManchhuVs.The State of witness does not make his evidence
Gujarat1978CriLJ448 inadmissible
SureshVs.The State of Maharashtra (DB) Cr.P.C. S.161 Statement should not be read
Decided On_ 31.10.2014 over to the witness by the police
Md. Ankoos and Ors.Vs.The Public Cr.P.C. S.161(3) Statement cannot be used
Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
AIR2010SC566
Dr. Sunil Clifford DanielVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.161_ In view of exception of
Punjab(2012)11SCC205 S.162(2) to S.161, statement of accused
under S.27 Evi Act need not be signed by
accused.
State of Kerala Vs.Babu & Cr.P.C. S.162 and 161 and 91 Magistrate can
OrsAIR1999SC2161 call case diary of another case
Mr. Prakash VernekarVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.162 and 452 and S.27 not barred
Goa2007CriLJ4649 for deciding custody of muddemal
Mr. Prakash Vernekar Vs. State of Goa Cr.P.C. S.162 and S.27 Statement is not
2007 Cri.L.J. 4649 barred for deciding custody of muddemal
Pakala Narayana Cr.P.C. S.162 Any confession made to a
SwamiVs.EmperorAIR1939PC47 police officer in course of investigation
whether a discovery is made or not is
excluded
Khatri and Ors.Vs.State of Bihar and Cr.P.C. S.162 Bar is not applicable in civil or
Ors.AIR1981SC1068 other proceeding
Tahsildar Singh and Anr.Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.162 Contradictions an omissions
Uttar PradeshAIR1959SC1012
Ramkishan Mithanlal SharmaVs.The State Cr.P.C. S.162 covers statements to police
of BombayAIR1955SC104 during TIP
George & Ors vs State Of Kerala (1998) 4 Cr.P.C. S.162 Statement of I.O. in the
SCC 605 inquest what he saw is admissible
State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Cr.P.C. S.164 and IPC S.376 Directions to
PoliceVs.Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna Police and Magistrates
2014(3)BomCR(Cri)98
(2014(3)BomCR(Cri)98)
Cr.P.C. S.164 and S.30 Evi Act Recording
confession by other than jurisdiction
Magistrate upheld
AIR1981SC1165 Cr.P.C. S.164 and S.80 Evidence Act SC
says Magistrate need not be examined Madi
Ganga
The State of MaharashtraVs.Prakash Cr.P.C. S.164 Confession
Dhawal Khairnar1997BomCR(Cri)367
Dhananjaya Reddy etc.vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.164 Confession without signature
KarnatakaAIR2001SC1512 of accused inadmissible
Abdul Razak ShaikhVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.164 Signature of accused is
Maharashtra1987MhLJ863 mandatory Bom. DB
Abdul_Razak_Shaikh_vs_State_Of_Mahar Cr.P.C. S.164 Signature of accused on
ashtra_on_7_August,_1987 confession Mandatory
State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Cr.P.C. S.164 statement of victim girl should
PoliceVs.Shivanna @ Tarkari not be disclosed to any person till final report
Shivanna2014ALLMR(Cri)4484(2014)8S
CC913
State Of Maharashtra vs Sharad B. Cr.P.C. S.167 60th or 90th day though
Sarda1983 (1) BomCR 578 holiday cannot be excluded
Bom. HC Abdul Wahid Vs State Of Cr.P.C. S.167 After charge sheet bail under
Maharashtra on 27 August 1991 section 436 or 437 only
Asgar Yusuf Mukadam and Ors.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.167 Allowing Home Food is in
Maharashtra and The Superintendent of disreation of Magistrate
Prison2004CriLJ4312
Kum. Shraddha Meghshyam Velhal Vs Cr.P.C. S.167 and 4 and POCSO Act JFCM
State of Maharashtra has no jurisdiction to remand take
cognizance and commit under PCSO Act
State through C.B.I. Vs.Dawood Ibrahim Cr.P.C. S.167 and 309 If accused was not
Kaskar and othersAIR1997SC2494 arrested till taking cognizance his remand
can be granted
In Re_ Jakir Khan @ JakerMANU-WB- Cr.P.C. S.167 and 437 Transit Remand
0253-2012 granted by rejecting bail
Tamizharasi and another Vs.Assistant Cr.P.C. S.167 and NDPS Act
Director, Narcotic Control
Bureau1996CriLJ208
Bom HC Cr.P.C. S.167 and S.36 of NDPS Act
Daji_Govind_Kamble_vs_State_Of_Mahar Magistrate remanded for more than 15 days
ashtra
Bom. HC B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector Of Cr.P.C. S.167 bail in serious offences NDPS
... vs Leidomann Heinrich And Another on can be cancelled
20 November, 1990
CBI vs. Anupam Kulkarni Cr.P.C. S.167
Bhupinder_Singh_&_Ors_vs_Jarnail_Sing Cr.P.C. S.167 For S.304B of IPC 90 days SC
h_&_Anr_on_13_July,_2006 Rajeev Chowdhary case referred
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs State Of Cr.P.C. S.167 for TADA offences
Maharashtra on 12 July, 1994
Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Cr.P.C. S.167 Free legal aid should be
KasabVs.State of provided from the stage of remand
MaharashtraAIR2012SC3565
Khatri And Others vs State Of Bihar Cr.P.C. S.167 Free Legal aid to be given at
AIR1981SC928 remand stage
G.K._Moopanar,_M.L.A._And_Others_vs Cr.P.C. S.167
_State_Of_Tamil_Nadu_on_16_March,_19
90
Prasad V.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.167 in POCSO Act offence
KeralaILR2013(2)Kerala1010 Magistrate can entertain first remand
Arnesh KumarVs.State of Bihar Cr.P.C. S.167 In S.498A IPC the Magistrate
AIR2014SC2756. authorising detention without recording
reasons is liable for departmental action
Nijamuddin_Mohammad_Bashir_Khan_... Cr.P.C. S.167 Limitation is 60 days for 10
_vs_State_Of_Maharashtra_on_7_July,_20 years imprisonment
06
Khatri And Others vs State Of Bihar 1981 Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate and Judges shall
SCC (1) 627 inform accused about free legal aid
Harihar Chaitanya vs State Of U.P.1990 Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate can differ with the
CriLJ 2082 I.O.
Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben Vs. Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate has to look into
State of Gujarat and ors., AIR 2013 SC 313 facts before granting remand
Khatri And Others vs State Of Bihar 1981 Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate is under obligation
SCC (1) 627 to inform availability of free legal aid Free
Legal aid
Mr. Uday Mohanlal AcharyaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.167
Maharashtra2001CriLJ4563
StateVs. Santokh SinghAIR43 1956 Cr.P.C. S.167 No police custody of
Madhya Pradesh 13 imprisoned accused
CBI vs. Anupam Kulkarni (1992)3SCC141 Cr.P.C. S.167 PCR should be within the first
Fifteen days only and that period cannot be
extended under any circumstances
Rajeev Chowdhary case referred Cr.P.C. S.167 Period is 60 days for S.395
Nijamuddin_Mohammad_Bashir_Khan_... and 366 IPC Bom
_vs_State_Of_Maharashtra_on_7_July,_20
06
Bhupinder_Singh_&_Ors_vs_Jarnail_Sing Cr.P.C. S.167 Period is 90 days for S.304B
h_&_Anr_on_13_July,_2006 IPC
Devender Kumar Vs. State of Haryana Cr.P.C. S.167 Police custody can be in the
2010CriLJ3849 first 15 days only. Cancellation of bail set
aside
NarainVs.Superintendent, Central Jail, Cr.P.C. S.167 Remand in absence of accused
New DelhiAIR1971SC178 who is not produced from jail is not illegal
Raj
Mr. Uday Mohanlal AcharyaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.167 Right to bail is defeated if not
Maharashtra2001CriLJ4563 availed already
AIR 1986 Raj 58 (FB) Cr.P.C. S.167 S.309 CJM has district
jurisdiction No bail than Cr.P.C.
Cr.P.C. S.167 S.309 Rajastan FB CJM has
district jurisdiction No bail than Cr.P.C
Arnesh KumarVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.167 Supreme Court directions
BiharAIR2014SC2756 regarding arrested accused
State of WB Vs. Dinesh Dalmia AIR 2007 Cr.P.C. S.167 Surrender is different from
SC 1801 production by police
State of Maharashtra and Ors.Vs.Saeed Cr.P.C. S.167 Transfer of Under prisoners to
Sohail Sheikh etc.AIR2013SC168 other jails is subject to Judicial order
Iqbal Kaur Kwatra vs The Director General Cr.P.C. S.167 Transit Remand
Of Police1996 (2) ALT 138 AP High
Court
Rajeev_Chaudhary_vs_State_(N.C.T.)_Of_ Cr.P.C. S.167(2(
Delhi_on_4_May,_2001
Central Bureau of InvestigationVs.Rathin Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Absconding accused
Dandapat and Ors.2015(9)SCALE120 arrested after charge sheet can be remanded
to PCR
Aslam Babalal DesaiVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Accused released on default
MaharashtraAIR1993SC1 ground cannot be arrested on only count of
filing of charge sheet
Sajid Basir ShaikhVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.167(2) After charge sheet Right of
Maharashtra2005(3)MhLj860 accused is defeated if he fails to exercise
Bashir And Others vs State Of Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and 437 Mere filing of
HaryanaBashir and Ors.Vs.State of charge sheet not sufficient to cancel bail
HaryanaAIR1978SC55
B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector of Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and NDPS Act Limit of 15
CustomsVs.Mohmed Azan Khan and days is for police custody and not for other
others 1990MhLJ582 agency custody
Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and S.4(2)_ Magistrate has
Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775 jurisdiction to remand in Customs Act case
Sayed Mohd. Ahmed KazmiVs.State, Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and Unlawful Activities Act
GNCTD and Ors.AIR2012SC660 S.43D Magistrate has to grant default bail
after the 90 days under Unlawful Activities
Act
Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak Cr.P.C. S.167(2) appicable to accused
Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775 produced by other than police
Union of India (UOI)Vs.Thamisharasi and Cr.P.C. S.167(2) applicable to NDPS Act
Ors.(1995)4SCC190
Union of India (UOI)Vs.Nirala Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Application filed for default
YadavAIR2014SC3036 bail cannot be rejected due to filing of charge
sheet before decision of bail application
B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector Of ... vs Cr.P.C. S.167(2)
Leidomann Heinrich And Another 1991
CriLJ 552
AnilkumarVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Bail cancelled by sessions
Maharashtra1990CriLJ2058 court under section 439(2) in NDPS Case
Bashir_And_Others_vs_State_Of_Haryana Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Bail cannot be cancelled on
_on_3_October,_1977 mere count of filing charge sheet leter on
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Cr.P.C. S.167(2)
Anupam J. Kulkarni AIR1992SC1768
Chaganti Satyanarayana and Ors.Vs.State Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Date of production before
of Andhra PradeshAIR1986SC2130 magistrate is starting point
Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Entry in diary in not a sine
Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775 quo non
Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashir Khan and Cr.P.C. S.167(2) For S.306 IPC period for
Anr.Vs.State of filing chargesheet against UTP is 60 days
Maharashtra2006CriLJ4266
State of Uttar PradeshVs.Lakshmi Cr.P.C. S.167(2) From charge sheet till
Brahman and Anr.AIR1983SC439 committal it is inquiry
Bhulabai wdo Barkaji MatreVs.Shankar Cr.P.C. S.167(2) If charge sheet is not filed
Barkaji Matre and others S.167 in time explanation of IO to be called
CRPC1999(3) Mh.L.J. 227
Sayed Mohd. Ahmed KazmiVs.State, Cr.P.C. S.167(2) in Unlawful Activities
GNCTD and Ors.AIR2012SC660 (Prevention) Act, 1967
Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak Cr.P.C. S.167(2) is applicable to accused
Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775 arrested under FERA Act
Jeewan Kumar Raut and Anr.Vs.Central Cr.P.C. S.167(2) is not applicable to offences
Bureau of InvestigationAIR2009SC2763 under TOHO Act as it provides for complaint
only
Satyajit Ballulbhai Desai and Ors.Vs.State Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Magistrate has to judicially
of GujaratI(2015)CCR321(SC) scrutinise circumstances and if satisfied order
police custody
Sayed Mohd. Ahmed KazmiVs.State, Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Magistrate kept application
GNCTD and Ors.AIR2012SC660 undecided till charge sheet Held accused is
entitled for bail
Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. Vs.Home Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Magistrate shall inform the
Secretary, State of Bihar, accused about the right to free legal aid and
PatnaAIR1979SC1369 to provide it
Aslam Babalal DesaiVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Merits not be considered
MaharashtraAIR1993SC1
Sajid Basir Shaikh vs SOM2005 (3) MhLJ Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Not indefeasible
860
Umashanker_And_Ors._vs_State_Of_Mad Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Pending bail application
hya_Pradesh allowed
Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashir Khan and Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 60 days for S.306
Anr.Vs.State of IPC
Maharashtra2006CriLJ4266
Shakil Khan Yasin KhanVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 60 days for S.306
Maharashtra MANU-MH-0047-2014 IPC
Rajeev Chaudharyvs.State (N.C.T.) of Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 60 days for S.386
DelhiAIR2001SC2369 IPC as punishment does not exceed 10 years
Bhupinder_Singh_&_Ors_vs_Jarnail_Sing Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 90 days for
h_&_Anr_on_13_July,_2006 S.304B IPC
Bhulabai wdo Barkaji MatreVs.Shankar Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Procedure to be followed by
Barkaji Matre and others S.167 Magistrate
CRPC1999(3) Mh.L.J. 227
Rajeev Chaudhary case A Comment Cr.P.C. S.167(2)
Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Remand under FERA Act
Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775 permissible
Palanisamy @ PalaniVs.State rep. by Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Sanction is not part of
Inspector of Police2003-1-LW(Crl)239 investigation Magistrate cannot refuse charge
sheet
Uday Mohanlal Acharyavs.State of Cr.P.C. S.167(2)
Maharashtra AIR 2001 SC1 910
Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand JainVs.State Cr.P.C. S.167(2) When Charge sheet is filed
of Maharashtra and Anr.(2013)3SCC77 and Sanction awaited Hence no bail
Nijamuddin_Mohammad_Bashir_Khan_... Cr.P.C. S.167(2)(a)(ii) 60 days for 10 years
_vs_State_Of_Maharashtra_on_7_July,_20 offence
06
Hussainara Khatoon and Ors.Vs.Home Cr.P.C. S.167(5) Two options
Secretary, State of Bihar,
PatnaAIR1979SC1377
Abhinandan Jha and Ors.Vs.Dinesh Cr.P.C. S.169 and 173 Magistrate cannot
MishraAIR1968SC117 direct police to file charge sheet
Rameshbhai Jagjivan Vora Authorised Cr.P.C. S.169 application before magistrate
Signatory of Gaekwad Vs.State of Gujarat is not tenable GUJARAT HIGH COURT
and Ors.2010GLH(2)588
Abhinandan Jha and Ors.Vs.Dinesh Cr.P.C. S.169 Magistrate cannot direct police
MishraAIR1968SC117 to file charge sheet
Mohd. Rafique Abdul Rahman Vs. State of Cr.P.C. S.169 Magistrate does not come in
Maharashtra 2013 Bom.C.R.(Cri) 251 picture under this section
MarotiVs.The State of Maharashtra and Cr.P.C. S.169 Mere report without final
Ors.2015(4)BomCR(Cri)504 report under S.173 is not tenable
Mohd. RafiqueVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.169 report before Magistration is
Maharashtra2013BomCR(Cri)251 not tenable
MarotiVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.169 Report is report of action taken
MaharashtraDecided On_ 04.02.2015 by IO and not final report
Kedar Narayan Parida & Ors vs State Of Cr.P.C. S.169 Report received regarding
Orissa & Anr (2009)9SCC538 some accused. Court can direct investigation
under S.156(3)
The State of BiharVs.Chandra Bhushan Cr.P.C. S.173 and 2(d) A plaint by sub-
Singh & Ors.AIR2001SC429 inspector of RPF is a complaint and not a
charge sheet
StateVs.Shankar Bhaurao Cr.P.C. S.173 and Rule 203 of the Bombay
KhirodeAIR1959Bom437 Police Manual, Volume III Summaries A B
and C explained
Union Public Service Commission Vs.S. Cr.P.C. S.173 Court was not justified in
Papaiah and othersAIR1997SC3876 accepting final report without notice to the
informant
Thana SinghVs.Central Bureau of Cr.P.C. S.173 Electronic charge sheet -SC
Narcotics(2013)2SCC590 directed to supply copy of charge sheet in
electronic form additionally
Popular MuthiahVs.State represented by Cr.P.C. S.173 Options available to
Inspector of Police2006(2)ACR2157(SC) Magistrate
Vinay TyagiVs.Irshad Ali (2013)5SCC762 Cr.P.C. S.173 Reinvestigation and further
investigation is explained in
Abhinandan Jha and Ors.Vs.Dinesh Cr.P.C. S.173 Report may be one under
MishraAIR1968SC117 section 169 or 170 Magistrate cannot direct
to file charge sheet
Thana SinghVs.Central Bureau of Cr.P.C. S.173 SC directed to supply copy of
Narcotics(2013)2SCC590 charge sheet in electronic form additionally
Bandi KotayyaVs.State (S.H.O. Cr.P.C. S.173 When cognizance is said to be
Nandigama) and Ors.AIR1966AP377 taken
Chittaranjan MirdhaVs.Dulal Ghosh and Cr.P.C. S.173(2)(I) Different situations
Anr.(2009)6SCC661 before Magistrate are discussed
Jakia Nasim Ahesan & Anr. vs State Of Cr.P.C. S.173(2)(i) Magistrate to issue
Gujarat AIR 2012 SC 243 Notice to the informant if not taking
cognizance
Rama ChaudharyVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.173(8) (2 Judges Bench held)
BiharAIR2009SC2308 Magistrates prior permission is not required
for further investigation-Reinvestigation is
distinct
Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and ors. Vs. Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Accused directed to appear
State of Gujarat (2009)6SCC332 for interrogation without being arrested
State through C.B.I. Vs.Dawood Ibrahim Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Accused subsequently
Kaskar and othersAIR1997SC2494 arrested Magistrate has dicretion to try
together or separately
Hemant Dhasmane vs.Central Bureau of Cr.P.C. S.173(8) can be triggered by
Investigation and anr.AIR2001SC2721 Magistrate
Hasanbhai Valibhai QureshiVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Permits further
Gujarat and Ors.AIR2004SC2078 investigation, and even dehors any direction
from the Court as such
Ram Lal NarangVs.State (Delhi Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Police has power to further
Administration)AIR1979SC1791 investigate but to inform and seek formal
permission of Magistrate
Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Police should inform the
Venkata Vishwandadha Maharaj Vs.State Magistrate and seek formal permission
of Andhra Pradesh & OrsAIR1999SC2332
Chandra BabuVsState and Cr.P.C. S.173(8)_ Magistrate has jurisdiction
Ors.(2015)8SCC774 to direct further investigation
Krishna Kumar VariarVs.Share Cr.P.C. S.177 178 and 181 Objection of
Shoppe(2010)12SCC485 jurisdiction to be raised before summoning
Court
State of Andhra PradeshVs.Cheemalapati Cr.P.C. S.177 does not govern S.223(d)
Ganeswara Rao and Anr.AIR1963SC1850 Court can try offences committed in same
course of transaction in other jurisdiction
State of Maharashtra Vs.Anjanabai Cr.P.C. S.177 does not govern S.223(d)
1997CriLJ2309 Court can try offences committed in same
course of transaction in other jurisdiction
Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors.Vs.Inspector of Cr.P.C. S.177 Illtreatment took at husbands
Police, Chennai and Anr.AIR2004SC4286 place No part of offence at her parents place
Hence complaint returned
Mahender GoyalVs.Messers Kadamba Cr.P.C. S.177 to 186 Complaint returning
International2014CriLJ1645 procedure laid down by Madras High Court
in
Union of India (UOI) and Anr.Vs.B.N. Cr.P.C. S.179 Old Act A Magistrate's
Ananthapadmanabhiah etc.1974-- jurisdiction is limited to his territorial
LW(Crl)82 Three judges jurisdiction
Mrs. Minguelin LoboVs.Smt. Archana Cr.P.C. S.187 If the offence took beyond
Sawant MANU-MH-1302-2004 jurisdiction, the Magistrate should summon
accused and then transfer
Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs.Rajesh Cr.P.C. S.187 Power of any Magistrate of the
Agarwal and othersAIR1999SC3499 First Class to take cognizance of the offence
is not impaired by territorial restrictions
Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Cr.P.C. S.187 power to take cognizance of
Agarwal and others AIR1999SC3499 the offence is not impaired by territorial
restrictions
Musaraf Hossain KhanVs.Bhageeratha Cr.P.C. S.188 Convenience of the Victim is
Engg. Ltd. and Ors.AIR2006SC1288 important
UshabenVs.Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada Cr.P.C. S.189A IPC Sec.494 cognizable with
and Ors.2012ACR1859 S. 498A on police report cognizable
Kishore Kumar Gyanchandani vs G.D. Cr.P.C. S.190 Acceptance of final report
Mehrotra And Anr. AIR 2002 SC 483 does not debar the Magistrate from taking
cognizance on the basis of the materials
produced in a complaint proceeding.
Uma Shankar Vs.State of Bihar and Cr.P.C. S.190 and 319 Magistrate can take
Anr.(2010)9SCC479 cognizance against the accused named in FIR
but omitted in the charge sheet
SWIL Ltd. vs. State of Delhi Cr.P.C. S.190 At the stage of taking
(2001)6SCC670 cognizance there is no question of S.319
Messers
Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.190 Cognizance taking means
Assam and Anr.1961CriLJ39
SITA case Bombay (DB) State vs Cr.P.C. S.190 Faulty Investiation not to
Mainabai AIR 1962 Bom 202 vitiate the trial unless there was prejudice
State vs MainabaiAIR 1962 Bom 202 Cr.P.C. S.190 Faulty Investiation not to
vitiate the trial unless there was prejudice
Rakesh & anr Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Cr.P.C. S.190 In Sessions cases Magistrate
2014 STPL(Web) 524 SC has to see only sufficient ground for
proceeding and not required to weigh
evidence meticulously SC Nupur
TalwarCentral Bureau of Investigation and
Anr
H.S. BainsVs.State (Union Territory of Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate accepted B final
Chandigarh)(1980)4SCC631 report but proceded under Ss.200 and 202
and took cognizance-Upheld in
Vijay Kant Thakur and Anr.Vs.Stale of Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate can differ with PSO
Bihar and Anr.2010CriLJ4190 on police report and issue process for
different sections
Rajinder Prasad vs. Bashir and Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate can take
ors.AIR2001SC3524 cognizance against other accused on
subsequent date also
Chittaranjan MirdhaVs.Dulal Ghosh and Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate can take
Anr.(2009)6SCC661 cognizance aginst other than charge sheeted
India_Carat_Pvt._Ltd_vs_State_Of_Karnat Cr.P.C. S.190 Notice to informant is
aka_&_Anr_on_15_February,_1989 necessary if cognizance is not taken
Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.190 Options to Magistrate
Assam and Anr.1961CriLJ39(3JJs)
M.C. MehtaVs.Union of India (UOI) and Cr.P.C. S.190 Passing order of S.156(3) or
Ors.(2007)1SCC110 Search Warrant is not taking Cognizance
H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs.The Cr.P.C. S.190 Taj corridor case
State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC 196
Rajinder Prasad vs. Bashir and ors. AIR Cr.P.C. S.190 Trial is not vitiated if the
2001 SC 3524 cognizance is valid
India Carat Pvt. Ltd.Vs.State of Karnataka Cr.P.C. S.190(1)(b) Magistrate can proceed
and Anr.AIR1989SC885 against accused not charge sheeted
India Carat Pvt. Ltd.Vs.State of Karnataka Cr.P.C. S.190(1)(b) Magistrate can take
and Anr.AIR1989SC885 cognizance from the material of final report
even if police say no offence madeout
Rattiram and Ors.Vs.State of M.P. through Cr.P.C. S.190(1)(b) Options to Magistrate He
Inspector of PoliceAIR2012SC1485 can take cognizance from material of final
report even if police say no offence madeout
Ratiram and others Vs State of M.P Cr.P.C. S.193 and SC and ST Act Trial is not
vitiated on mere count that Sessions Court
directly accepted the charge sheet
1999CriLJ4173 Cr.P.C. S.193 and SC ST POA Act Though
case was not committed Cognizance by
Session Trial was not viated
Kishun Singh and Ors.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.193 Charge-sheet to be returned to
Bihar(1993)2SCC16 police for presenting before JMFC for
committal in SC and ST POA Act Referring
Officer
Daulat RamVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.193 On committal Sessions Court
PunjabAIR1962SC1206 gets jurisdiction to take cognizance against
new accused on same material
M. Narayandas vs State Of Karnataka And Cr.P.C. S.195 and IPC s.182 it is incumbent
Ors.,2004 Cri.L.J. 822 that a complaint in writing should be made
by the public servant concerned for only
KAMLAPATI TRIVEDI Vs. Cr.P.C. S.195 and S.340 Court can file
RESPONDENT_ STATE OF WEST complaint on the basis of FIR and
BENGAL1979 AIR 777 investigation provided 340 is followed
In Re_ Vishwanath M. Hegde Cr.P.C. S.195 Attracted for S.211 IPC Held
AIR1951Bom289 SC 2_1 in
Mahesh Chand SharmaVs.State of U.P. and Cr.P.C. S.195 Complaint for S.500 IPC
Ors.(2009)15SCC519 maintenable though the act falls under S.211
IPC also
Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan Mohd. vs Cr.P.C. S.195 No bar to complaint of false
Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. Abdul mutation entry outside court
Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan Mohd. vs Cr.P.C. S.195 no bar to S.156
Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. Abdul
M.L. SethiVs.R.P. Kapur and Cr.P.C. S.195 Not a bar to order of S.156(3)
Anr.AIR1967SC528 as the bar comes after investigation Then
Court can file complaint
Rama Rao and Anr.Vs.Narayan and Cr.P.C. S.195 not bar for S.211 IPC
Anr.AIR1969SC724
State of PunjabVs.Brij Lal Cr.P.C. S.195 Registrar Co-op societies is
PaltaAIR1969SC355 not a Court
Ajaib Singh and Anr. vs. Joginder Singh Cr.P.C. S.195
and Anr. AIR1968SC1422
State of PunjabVs.Brij Lal Cr.P.C. S.195 Successor-in-office a
PaltaAIR1969SC355 Magistrate can file a complant. Limitation
under police Act for offence under police Act
only
Nandkishor Laxminarayan Mundhada And Cr.P.C. S.195 There can be no objection to
Ors 2008CriLJ990 the continuance of proceedings relating to
offences for other than those covered by
Sections 182, 211 and 193 IPC
Iqbal Singh Marwah and Cr.P.C. S.195 Will forged prior to production
Anr.Vs.Meenakshi Marwah and before court. No bar. Bom says
Anr.AIR2005SC2119
Abdul Rehman and Ors. vs. K.M. Anees- Cr.P.C. S.195(1) Bars unless the complaint is
ul-Haq 2012CriLJ1060 by the Court
Kamlapati TrivediVs.State of West Cr.P.C. S.195(1)(b) attracted for S.211 IPC
BengalAIR1979SC777
Chartered Accountants of IndiaVs.Vimal Cr.P.C. S.195(1)(b) Complaint by Court
Kumar Surana and Anr. (2011) 1 SCC(Cri) required for S.211 offence on False police
442 report
M.S. SheriffVs.The State of Madras and Cr.P.C. S.195(1)(b)(ii) and 4 Case on police
Ors.AIR1954SC397 report is tenable by excluding the offences
which can be taken cognizance on complaint
The Institute of
Durgacharan Naik and Ors.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.195(3) Criminal proceedings
OrissaAIR1966SC1775 should be given precedence and the civil
proceedings should be stayed
State of Maharashtra Vs.Dr. B.K. Subbarao Cr.P.C. S.195Convicted under 353 acquitted
and another1993CriLJ2984 Overruled under 186 of IPC
General Officer CommandingVs.CBI and Cr.P.C. S.197 (Overruled) For want of
Anr.AIR2012SC1890 sanction accused was acquitted instead of
discharge
SC State of Madhya PradeshSheetla Sahai Cr.P.C. S.197 and P.C. Act S.19 Sanction is
and Ors.(2009)8SCC617 required for taking cognizance and not for
taking charge sheet
State of Kerala Vs.V. Padmnabhan Cr.P.C. S.197 and P.C. Act S.19ection 197
Nair(1999)5SCC690 requires sanction both for those who were or
are public servants
Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana AIR Cr.P.C. S.197 Criminal Breach of trust is not
1987 SC 735 part of duty
State of Maharashtra Vs.Dr. B.K. Subbarao Cr.P.C. S.197 Due to want of valid sanction
and another1993CriLJ2984 Overruled order will not operate as acquittal
State of U.P.Vs.Paras Nath Cr.P.C. S.197 For want of sanction accused
Singh2009CriLJ3069 was aquitted instead of discharge
State of Orissa through Cr.P.C. S.197 Forgery etc are not part of duty
and hence want of sanction is no bar
Kumar Raghvendra Singh and Cr.P.C. S.197 is and was
Ors.Vs.Ganesh Chandra Jew
Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Cr.P.C. S.197 Necessit of sanction can be
JainVs.Pandey Ajay Bhushan and considered after evidence when it cannot be
Ors.AIR1998SC1524 decided without evidence
Mohd. Hadi RajaVs. State of Bihar and Cr.P.C. S.197 not applicable to public sector
Anr.AIR1998SC1945 undertaking employee
Parkash Singh Badal and Anr. vs State of Cr.P.C. S.197 Power under S.156(3) is
Punjab and Ors(2007)1SCC1 discretionary
Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh & Cr.P.C. S.197 Real test is if the complained
Orsvs.Jammal Patel and acts were not done should it amount to
Ors.AIR2001SC2198 dereliction of duty then sanction is necessary
Matajog DobeyVs.H.C. Cr.P.C. S.197 Sanction is required to
BhariAIR1956SC44 prosecute when the search party was
obstructed and there was just a scuffle
Kerala HC Cr.P.C. S.197 Sanction Test
Sankarankutty_Menon_And_Ors._vs_Dep
uty_Superintendent_Of_Police,_..._on_3_J
anuary,_1961
Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Cr.P.C. S.197 Whether the accused was
JainVs.Pandey Ajay Bhushan and discharging public servant's duty or not can
Ors.AIR1998SC1524 be considered during the progress of the case
Kumar Raghvendra Singh and Cr.P.C. S.197 Words used are -is and was -
Ors.Vs.Ganesh Chandra Jew State of Orissa through
Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas Vs. State Of Cr.P.C. S.198 and S.495 of IPC complainant
Maharashtra & Anr, AIR 1967 SC 983 died mother continued complaint
S Cr.P.C. S.198 Cognizance of S.494 with
S.498A of IPC on charge sheet permissible
tate of Orisssa Vs.Sharat Chandra Sahu and Cr.P.C. S.198- IPC Sec.494 cognizable with
another S. 498A on police report cognizable
UshabenVs.Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada Cr.P.C. S.199 Where police took no action
and Ors.2012ACR1859 inspite of information remedy lies in filing
complaint
Divine Retreat CentreVs.State of Kerala Cr.P.C. S.200 in N.I. Act cases Affidavits are
and Ors.AIR2008SC1614 allowed in lieu of verification
Rajesh Bhalchandra ChalkeVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.200 Second complaint on same
Maharashtra and Emco Dynatorq Pvt. facts when tenable remanded to High Court
Ltd.2011(1)MhLj244
Poonam Chand Jain 2005 SCC (Cri) 190 Cr.P.C. S.201 Complaint cannot be returned
after issuing summons
Devendra Kishanlal DagaliaVs.Dwarkesh Cr.P.C. S.202 Amended Examining
Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. and witnesses is a compliance of postponement
Ors.AIR2014SC655
Vijay Dhanuka Etc.Vs.Najima Mamtaj Cr.P.C. S.202 In session triable offences it is
Etc2014CriLJ2295 not mandatory but advisable to examine all
witnesses
Shivjee SinghVs.Nagendra Tiwary and Cr.P.C. S.202 Inquiry mandatory when
Ors.AIR2010SC2261 accused is from far away place
2014_STPL(Web)_218_SC Cr.P.C. S.202 Magistrate is not a silent
spectator He may put questions to elicite
truth Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr.Vs.Special
Judicial
Magistrate and Ors.AIR1998SC128 Cr.P.C. S.202 Once complaint was quashed
on the ground of similar complaint being
peding further complaint is not tenable
Rajeev SawhneyVs.State Bank of Cr.P.C. S.202 Shall does not mean
Mauritius Ltd. and Ors.2011(6)MhLj401 mandatory Not necessary to examine all
witnesses in inquiry
Shivjee SinghVs.Nagendra Tiwary and Cr.P.C. S.203 Magistrate has no jurisdiction
Ors.AIR2010SC2261 to recall the process
Adalat PrasadVs.Rooplal Jindal and Cr.P.C. S.203 Sessions Trial case dismissed
Ors.(2004)7SCC338 by Magistrate an error within jurisdiction
Kewal Krishan Lachman DasVs.Suraj Cr.P.C. S.204 (Check this ratio) On receiving
Bhan and Anr.AIR1980SC1780 police report process need not be issued
Nilesh Daulatrao Lakhani vs. State of Cr.P.C. S.204 Adalat Prasad case applicable
Maharashtra2014(4)BomCR(Cri)757 to Summons and Warrant cases
Subramanium SethuramanVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.204 and NI Act S.138 Adalat
Maharashtra and Anr.2004CriLJ4609 Prasad followed in
Subramanium SethuramanVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.204 Challenge to jurisdiction shall
Maharashtra and Anr. (2004)13SCC324 be made by application before trial court
Krishna Kumar VariarVs.Share Cr.P.C. S.204 Check this ratio On receiving
Shoppe2010CriLJ3848 police report process need not be issued
Nilesh Daulatrao Lakhani vs. State of Cr.P.C. S.204 Court can insist for process fee
Maharashtra2014(4)BomCR(Cri)757 in non cognizable offences
1Mt. Vithi and Anr. vs Tulsiram Maroti Cr.P.C. S.204 Detailed reasons unneccary for
and Crown 950CriLJ746 issuance process
Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of Cr.P.C. S.204 order is not interlocutory
Delhi) and Anr.AIR2012SC1747 Magistrate cannot review
Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of Cr.P.C. S.204 Summons is a process issued
Delhi) and Anr.AIR2012SC1747 by court calling to apper
Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of Cr.P.C. S.204 Taking cognizance explained
Delhi) and Anr.(2012)5SCC422
Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of Cr.P.C. S.204 Taking cognizance means
Delhi) and Anr.(2012)5SCC422 becoming aware of and to take notice of
judicially
AIR1997SC3750State of BiharVs.Kadra Cr.P.C. S.206 Notification for Special
Pahadiya and Others Summons
R.R. ChariVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.206 Use recommended by
U.P.AIR1962SC1573 Supreme Court
Raj Kishore PrasadVs.State of Bihar and Cr.P.C. S.209 After committal it cannot be
anotherAIR1996SC1931 said that the Magistrate has jurisdiction over
the case
Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of Cr.P.C. S.209 Committal under the new
Delhi) and Anr.(2012)5SCC422 Code is not an enquiry strictly speaking
Cr.P.C. S.209 Form Committal Warrant
Chhotan Sao and Anr.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.209 Magistrate has a duty to secure
BiharAIR2014SC907 the Vicera Report etc before the committal
Raj Kishore Prasad Vs.State of Bihar and Cr.P.C. S.209 Magistrate has no power to
anotherAIR1996SC1931 summon a new accused at the stage of
committal
State of Uttar PradeshVs.Lakshmi Cr.P.C. S.209 Supplying copies under S.207
Brahman and Anr.AIR1983SC439 is judicial function and without its
compliance there can be no committal
Chhotan Sao and anr Vs. State of Bihar Cr.P.C. S.209 Without obtaining the forensic
AIR 2014 SC 907 report committal by Magistrate is mechanical
and without applying mind
Pal @ Palla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Cr.P.C. S.210 Clubbing of police case and
(2010)10SCC123 complaint case is not permissible when the
accused or the offences are not same
Delhi HC State vs Ram Kanwar Cr.P.C. S.212(2) is an enabling provision
1984(1)Crimes1040
Ranchhodlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Cr.P.C. S.212, 219 and 220 are enabling
AIR 1965 SC 1248 provisions for joinder of trials
C.B.I.Vs.Karimullah Osan Khan Cr.P.C. S.216 Charge may be altered any
time
Ranchhodlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Cr.P.C. S.218 and 219 Charge IPC S.409
1965 AIR 1248 Consecutive sentence in separate trials
upheld
Manoharlal Lohe Vs. State of Madhya Cr.P.C. S.218 and S.409 IPC Accused never
Pradesh1981CriLJ1563 objected joint trial and hence consenting
party and hence conviction upheld
Chudaman Narayan Patil vs State Of Cr.P.C. S.218 and S.409 IPC Ranchodlal
Maharashtra on 22 September, 1967 follwed in
Birichh Bhuian and Ors.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.218 Difference between
BiharAIR1963SC1120 irregularity and illegality in joinder of
charges
Messers Indian Sulphacid Industries Cr.P.C. S.219 and 220 are exception section
DELHI MANU-DE-2870-2011 218 of Cr.P.C.
Ranchhodlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Cr.P.C. S.219 Charge IPC S.409 Consecutive
1965 AIR 1248 sentence in separate trials upheld
State vs Ram Kanwar 1984 (1) Crimes Cr.P.C. S.219 Separate charges and trials is
1040 Delhi the normal rule
Aklak Ahmed Fakruddin PatelVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.220 Clubbing of police case for
Maharashtra2011CriLJ126 S.498A and 306 and complaint case for
S.302 and 304B against same accused has
been upheld
Manivannan And S. Krishnamoorthy vs Cr.P.C. S.220 Complainant filed separate
P.R. Adhikesavan MANU-TN-0178-2008 cases of S.420 IPC and S.138 NI Act Held
separate trials were not improper
Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. vs.Union Cr.P.C. S.220 Each depositors case is
of India and ors AIR2001SC3810 individual offence
Nova Vision Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Cr.P.C. S.220 For separate cheque separate
Anr.Vs.State and Anr.2011CriLJ868 trial has been justified
Praveen vs State Of Maharashtra 2001 Cr.P.C. S.220 Same transaction Kidnapping
CriLJ 3417 from Nagpur Rape in Jabalpur Either Court
can try
Praveen vs State Of Maharashtra 2001 Cr.P.C. S.220 Same transaction
CriLJ 3417
Nova Vision Electronics Pvt.Ltd and anr Cr.P.C. S.220 Separate cheques seperate
Vs. State and anr MANU-DE-4089-2009 trials
K. Prema S. Rao Vs.Yadla Srinivasa Rao Cr.P.C. S.221 Convicted for S.306 along
AIR2003SC11 with S.498A though charged with S.304B
and 498A
Samadhan Baburao Khakare and Cr.P.C. S.222(2) Major and the minor
Ors.Vs.The State of Maharashtra and offences must be cognate offences having
Ors.1995(2)MhLj464 main ingredients in common.
Ramesh Singh State Of Maharashtra 1993 Cr.P.C. S.222(2) Police Act S.124 conviction
CriLJ 2743 upheld though the charge was under S.413 of
IPC
Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad YadavVs.State Cr.P.C. S.223 On the application of accused
through C.B.IAIR2003SC3838 the Magistrate may amalgamate cases. He
can read one case evidence in the other
Banti @ GudduVs.State of Madhya Cr.P.C. S.226 and 231 APP can choose and
PradeshAIR2004SC261 pick his witnesses
(Satish Mehra (1996) 9 SCC 766 Cr.P.C. S.226 Anticipatory bail in UP upheld
Overruled)-State Of Orissa vs Debendra by SC
Nath Padhi A.I.R. 2005 SCC 369
Dinesh Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Cr.P.C. S.227 and 239 Material produced by
dd on_ 07.07.2014 MANU-SC-0587-2014 accused not to be considered
Union of India (UOI)Vs.Prafulla Kumar Cr.P.C. S.227 Charge of an offence not
Samal and Anr.AIR1979SC366 mentioned in charge sheet can be framed
State Of Karnataka vs Chetan Tayal Cr.P.C. S.227 Discharge Test
V. C. Shukla vs State Through C.B.I AIR Cr.P.C. S.227 Documents produced by
1980 SC AIR accused cannot be considered at the time of
charge
Niranjan Singh Karan Singh Vs. Jitendra Cr.P.C. S.227 Framing Charge is
Bhimraj Bijje, AIR 1990 SC 1962 Interlocutory order
Satish Mehra (1996) 9 SCC 766 Overruled Cr.P.C. S.227 Marshalling of evidence not
in State Of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi required at the stage of Charge
A.I.R. 2005 SCC 369
Willie (William) SlaneyVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.227 Material of accused not to be
Madhya PradeshAIR1956SC116 considered
M. Joy Varghese Cr.P.C. S.227 Omission to frame charge of
s.34 IPC not fatal
Smt. Snehalata MondalVs.State of West Cr.P.C. S.227 Though Trial cannot consider
Bengal(2008)1CALLT297(HC) documents of accused High Court can
consider under S.482
State of BombayVs.Mohamadh Cr.P.C. S.229 Subsequent plea of guilty
KhanAIR1960Bom150 accepted
Rohtash KumarVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.231 Additional witness for
Haryana(2013)14SCC434 prosecution can be allowed
Ram Deo Chauhanvs.State of Assam Cr.P.C. S.231 and Evi Act S.114 Prosecution
(2001)5SCC714 is not bound to examine all listed witnesses
Narpal Singh & Others vs State Of Cr.P.C. S.235(2) Accused upon conviction
Haryana AIR 1977 SC 1066 can be sent to jail until hearing on sentence
Modilal Kaluram Kachhara And Etc. vs Cr.P.C. S.235(2) To hear on sentence de
State Of Maharashtra 1988 CriLJ 1901 novo trial not necessary
(Satish Mehra (1996) 9 SCC 766 Cr.P.C. S.239 and 240 Transfer application
Overruled)-State Of Orissa vs Debendra Rejected Complaint Against Judge
Nath Padhi A.I.R. 2005 SCC 369
Cr.P.C. S.239 Discharged from S.498A and
506
Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr. Vs.The State Cr.P.C. S.239 Magistrate need not write
of West BengalAIR2000SC522 order for framing charge but has to write
order for discharge
M. Joy Varghese Vs The State ANU-TN- Cr.P.C. S.239 Under S.482 no bar to the
0365-2011 High Court to consider the documents
produced by accused
Dattatraya Dagduji Borkute 1996 CriLJ987 Cr.P.C. S.242(2) and 254(2) and 87 If
warrant is not applied for, it is Court's
discretion to issue warrant to the absent
witness
ILR 1970(1) Del287 Cr.P.C. S.244 Accused has right to cross
examine in EBC
Sunil Mehta and Anr.Vs.State of Gujarat Cr.P.C. S.244 Statements of S.202 are not
and Anr.2013(2)BomCR(Cri)335 EBC
1983 Mah.L.J.494 Cr.P.C. S.244 Witness in EBC not available
for cross after charge His evidence may be
considered
Cricket Association of Bengal and ors Vs. Cr.P.C. S.245(2) Complaint can be dismissed
State of West Bengal and ors. AIR 1971 before charge
SC 1971
Luis De Piedade Lobo Vs.Mahadev Cr.P.C. S.245(2) Opportunity to adduce EBC
Vishwanath Parulekar1984CriLJ513 should be given to the Complaint
Hansraj Harjiwan Bhate and Cr.P.C. S.246 Additional witnesses allowed
Ors.Vs.EmperorAIR1940Nag390 Absence of any provision on particular
matter does not mean that there is no such
power in criminal court
Gurmukh Singh and Ors. vs. The State of Cr.P.C. S.248(2) Conviction not bad for
Punjab (1972)4SCC805 failure to adopt procedure applicable to
complaint-warrant case
Sagunabai Lahanu Shende Vs.Patru Goma Cr.P.C. S.249 cannot be invoked after charge
Lengure and others1979MhLJ18
DB In Re_ Jamnabai Meghji Cr.P.C. S.249 Courts practice of posting case
AIR1934Bom130 for actual hearing and simple adjournment
discussed by
Narayandas Narayandas Gulabchand Cr.P.C. S.249 Magistrate is not empowered
Agrawal v. Rakesh Kumar Nem Kumar to restore a complaint
Porwal 1996 (2) Mh.L.J. 463
Dagdu Govindshet WaniVs.Punja Vedu Cr.P.C. S.250 and 350 Old Act For these
WaniAIR1937Bom55 sections trial commences in warrant case
even before charge
IND Synergy Ltd.Vs.Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Cr.P.C. S.251 Adalat Prasad case would not
Ltd.III(2014)BC433(Del) come in way for objection to jurisdiction
Jhantu DasVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.251 If the admitted facts do not
Tripura(2007)2GLR443 amount to offence accused can not be
convicted
Girraj Prasad MeenaVs.State of Rajasthan Cr.P.C. S.252 Plead guilty for lessor offences
and Ors 2013 (12) SCALE 275 set aside as informant had no opportunity to
apply for adding charges or accused
Shri Sandeep Indravadan SagarVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.252 Rubber stamp used for
Maharashtra and others dd on 10.01.2013 recording plea of accused Court upheld the
order
State of MaharashtraVs.Maruti Dadu Cr.P.C. S.255 Magistrate should issue
Kamble1988MhLJ49 summons on request of the prosecution, but
can refuse to adjourn if no efforts taken to
serve the summons
Jethalal GirdharlalVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.255(2) and Prohibition Act
Gujarat(1984)2GLR964 S.66(1)(b) Hearing on sentence gives
accused to show special reason for less than
minimum punishment
Jethalal GirdharlalVs.State of Gujarat Cr.P.C. S.255(2) and S.66(1)(b) Magistrate
MANU-GJ-0206-1984 has to hear the accused on sentence
In Re_ Wasudeo Narayan Phadnis Cr.P.C. S.256 (Do not follow this authority)
AIR1950Bom10 (DB) Magistrate can restore the complaint and
continue from the last stage
Narayandas Gulabchand Agrawal 1996-2- Cr.P.C. S.256 and 249 Bombay says
MhLj463 Magistrate has no jurisdiction to restore a
dismissed complaint
Om Gayatri and company Vs. State of Cr.P.C. S.256 Bombay No revision lies
Maharashtra 2006 Cr.L.J.601 against order under section
Associated Cement Co. Ltd vs Keshvanand Cr.P.C. S.256 Court should not insist for
AIR1998SC596 presence of particular person should not
dismiss if evidence already recorded the
Harishchandra @ Sunil Rajaram Rasker Cr.P.C. S.256 Magistrate cannot restore
Vs.Kantilal Virchand Vora & complaint
another1998CriLJ3754
Madankumar Dharamchand Jain and Cr.P.C. S.256 Magistrate has no power to
Anr.Vs.State of Maharashtra and recall the dismissal order
Anr.1983(1)BomCR416
Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya and Anr.Vs.S.N. Cr.P.C. S.256 Magistrate not empowered to
Thakur and Anr.AIR1986SC1440 restore dismissed complaint
S. Rama KrishnaVs.S. Rami Cr.P.C. S.256(1) Magistrate has to dismiss
ReddyAIR2008SC2066 complaint unless decided to adjourn for some
cause
State of MaharashtraVs.Maruti Dadu Cr.P.C. S.258 After summons only
Kamble1988MhLJ49 Magistrate can close case
Pramatha Nath MukherjeeVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.259 After discharging from
West BengalAIR1960SC810 warrant case trying summons case under
chapter 20 is valid
Zafar and othersVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.263 and 264 of old Cr.P.C Notes of
U.P.1968AWR(H.C.)38281 evidence when need not be retained
Girraj Prasad MeenaVs.State of Rajasthan Cr.P.C. S.265 Plea bargaining in haste
and Ors.
Guerrero Lugo Elvia GrisselVs.The State Cr.P.C. S.265A Notification of the excluded
of Maharashtra2012CriLJ1136 Acts
Madras HC Cr.P.C. S.265E Court has no discretion to
State_By_vs_K.N.Nehru_on_3_November, award sentence other than one-fourth of the
_2011-1 punishment
Ramesh Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar Cr.P.C. S.267 Formal arrest of the accused in
And Ors. on 17 December, 1986 jail
State of Maharashtra Vs.Yadav Natthuji Cr.P.C. S.267 Non production of prisoners
Kohachade2000CriLJ959
State of Maharashtra and P.C. SinghVs.Dr. Cr.P.C. S.267 Procedure of Production
Praful B. Desai and Anr.AIR2003SC2053 warrant
The State of Maharashtra Vs.Bhaurao Cr.P.C. S.273 Evidence on commission
Doma Udan and Others1996(1)MhLj214 through VC allowed in Criminal cases
Abdul Cr.P.C. S.277 Marathi deposition will prevail
RahmanVs.Emperor1927(29)BOMLR813 over English
Mir Mohd. Omar and Ors.vs.State of West Cr.P.C. S.278 Not reding over deposition but
BengalAIR1989SC1785 making available for his reading was
sufficient
Trial not vitiated Shivnarayan Cr.P.C. S.278 Object is to ensure accuracy of
KabraVs.The State of evidence and to give witness concerned
MadrasAIR1967SC986 opportunity to point out mistakes
The State Of Maharashtra vs Manik Mohan Cr.P.C. S.279 Evidence's language unknown
Gaikwad on 26 November, 2008 to accused, but known to advocates.
Rajesh Kumar and Anr.Vs.State Govt. of Cr.P.C. S.291A Test Identification Parade
NCT of Delhi (2008)4SCC493 and purpose No provision in Cr.P.C. which
obliges investigation agency to hold
identification parade
Kodadi Srinivasa Lingam and Ors.Vs.State Cr.P.C. S.293(1) Not obligatory that the
of A.P.2001CriLJ602 A.P expert on the scientific issue of the chemical
examination of substance, should be made to
depose in proceedings before Court
Guwahati Sub-Divisional Market Cr.P.C. S.294 Admitted documents can be
CommitteeVs.Suresh read in evidence
Sikaria2013(4)GLT486
Himachal Pradesh AdministrationVs.Om Cr.P.C. S.294 application by accused shall be
PrakashAIR1972SC975 considered only statement of S.313
State of Punjab vs. Naib Cr.P.C. S.294 Proof without examining the
DinAIR2001SC3955 expert
Constitution Bench Dharam Pal and Cr.P.C. S.296 What is formal evidence which
Ors.Vs.State of Haryana and Anr.MANU- can be taken on affidavit is explained
SC-0720-2013
Jayendra Vishnu ThakurVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.299 and 193 After committal
Maharahstra and Anr.(2009)7SCC104 Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to summon
accused named in column no.2
Jayendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Cr.P.C. S.299 is applicable when the accused
Maharahstra and Anr. (2009)7SCC104(1 intentionally makes inaccessable and not
merely when it is shown that it is not
possible to trace him
Nirmal Singh Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.299 On surrender of accused
HaryanaAIR2000SC1416 attachment to be vacated )
Smt. Urmila SahuVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.299 second part is exceptionto S.33
Orissa1998CriLJ1372 Orissa of Evidence Act
Central Bureau of InvestigationVs.Abu Cr.P.C. S.299 Unless common evidence is
Salem Ansari and Anr.(2011)4SCC426 recorded the evidence against the tried
accused cannot be read against absconding
accused
Monica BediVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.299(1) will be applicable if any of
A.P.(2011)1SCC284 its conditions are satisfied
Thomas DanaVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.300 Double jeopardy To operate as
PunjabAIR1959SC375 a bar the second prosecution and the
consequential punishment thereunder, must
be for 'the same offence
Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai PatelVs.State Cr.P.C. S.300 Double Jeopardy's 3 requisites
of Gujarat and Anr.AIR2012SC2844
State of Karnataka through CBIVs.C. Cr.P.C. S.300 No Double Jeopardy in
NagarajaswamyAIR2005SC4308 Dishonor of Cheque case even if there was a
case under S.420 IPC
Baban DaudVs.EmperorAIR1915Bom254 Cr.P.C. S.300 P.C. Act S.19 Fresh trial not
barred when the Court had no jurisdiction to
take cognizance due to invaid sanction
Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Cr.P.C. S.301 Trial on Sunday without legal
KasabVs.State of aid was setaside
MaharashtraAIR2012SC3565
Sitaram SaoVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.302 Free legal aid should be
JharkhandAIR2008SC391 provided from the stage of remand
Sitaram SaoVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.306 Aprover relied
JharkhandAIR2008SC391
Narayan Chetanram ChaudharyVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.306 Aprover was relied
MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Anr. Cr.P.C. S.306 Pardon is not right Aapplicable
Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC without committal 307 applicable after
3352 committal.doc
Narayan Chetanram ChaudharyVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.306(1) is invocable at
MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352 precommitmentS.307 is invocable at post-
commitment while state
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs. Cr.P.C. S.306(1) Pardon is not right
State of Maharashtra (2009)6SCC498 Aapplicable without committal 307
applicable after committal.doc
State of Himachal PradeshVs.Surinder Cr.P.C. S.306(1) Pardon Procedure
Mohan And OthersAIR2000SC1862
A. DeivendranVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.306(4) Accused has no right of
T.N.AIR1998SC2821 cross examination of the approver
Asokan L.S.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.306(4)(a) Examination of approver
Kerala2005CriLJ3848 is mandatory if pardon tendered before
committal but not mandatory if tendered by
sessions court after commital
The State of MaharashtraVs.Shanti Prasad Cr.P.C. S.306(4)(a) Statement of approver is
Jain1978MhLJ227 not admissibleunder S.33 Evi Act
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Cr.P.C. S.306(5) CJM and ACJM and CMM
Anr.Vs.State of and ACMM have equal jurisdiction
MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352
Mrinal Das and Ors.Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.307 After committal the approver
TripuraAIR2011SC3753 need not be examined twice
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Cr.P.C. S.307 is applicable after committal
Anr.Vs.State of
MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352
Jasbir Singhvs. Vipin Kumar Jaggi and Cr.P.C. S.307 is invocable at post-
Ors.AIR2001SC2734 commitment while S.306 is invocable at
precommitment state
P. Ramachandra RaoVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.307 pardon is by Court NDPS Act
KarnatakaAIR2002SC1856 S.64 is by executive Later overrides
Thana SinghVs.Central Bureau of Cr.P.C. S.309 Common Cause and Rajdeo
Narcotics2013CriLJ1262 circulated in Sharma Cases are overruled
Pune
Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab dd in Cr.P.C. S.309 Criminal Trials Directions for
2012 day to day trials
Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. etc.Vs.R.S. Cr.P.C. S.309 Directions given not to grant
Nayak and another etc. adjournments casually
etc.AIR1992SC1701
N.G. Dastanevs.Shrikant S. Shivde and Cr.P.C. S.309 It is neither permissible nor
Anr.AIR2001SC2028 possible nor desirable to lay down an outer
limit of time
Bipin Shantilal PanchalVs.State of Gujarat Cr.P.C. S.309 Magistrate new spared from
and Anr.AIR2001SC1158 adverse remarks for allowing Advocates
misconduct in seeking adjournment
Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. etc.Vs.R.S. Cr.P.C. S.309 Mark the objected document
Nayak and another etc. tentatively as an exhibit
etc.AIR1992SC1701
Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath vs State of Cr.P.C. S.309 Neither permissible nor
Assam AIR2001SC2231 possible nor desirable to lay down an outer
limit of time
Hussainara Khatoon and Ors.Vs.Home Cr.P.C. S.309 On conviction accused to be
Secretary, State of Bihar, taken into custody pending punishment
PatnaAIR1979SC1360
P. Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka Cr.P.C. S.309 Speedy trial is of the essence
AIR2002SC1856 of criminal justice
P. Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka Cr.P.C. S.309 Supreme Court cannot fix time
AIR2002SC1856 for conclusion of trials
Mohd. KhalidVs.State of West Cr.P.C. S.309 Time cannot be fixed by
Bengal(2002)7SCC334 Supreme Court for conclusion of trials
State of U.P. vs.Shambhu Nath Singh & Cr.P.C. S.309 Unnecessary adjournments
Ors.AIR2001SC1403 give a scope for a grievance that accused
persons get a time to get over the witnesses
Sasi ThomasVs.State and Cr.P.C. S.309 When witnesses are present
Ors.(2006)12SCC421 and accused causes adjournment Court can
remand accused or direct payment of
expenses present
In Re_ Kesava Pillai and Anr. Cr.P.C. S.311 Court can order further
AIR1929Mad837 investigation
Nageshwar Shri Krishna GhobeVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.311 Just decision does not
MaharashtraAIR1973SC165 necessarily mean a decision in favour of
defence
Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan,Vs.Union Cr.P.C. S.311 Parties cannot control the
Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Court's discretion to have any additional
2003BomCR(Cri)1103 evidence
Rajendra Prasad Vs.The Narcotic Cr.P.C. S.311 Recall of witness allowed
CellAIR1999SC2292
Iddar and Ors.Vs.Aabida and Cr.P.C. S.311 The power of the Court was
Anr.AIR2007SC3029 plenary to summon or even recall any
witness at any stage of the case
Rajendra Prasad vs The Narcotic Cell Cr.P.C. S.311 to be invoked Essential for just
Through Its AIR 1999 SC 2292 decision
Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, Vs. Union Cr.P.C. S.311 What is Lacuna. No party in a
Territory Of Dadra And Nagar, 2004 CriLJ trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors
150
Laxman alias Laxmayya Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.311 Witness recalled to depose as
Maharashtra 2012 Cri.L.J. 2826 they turned hostile previously due to threats
by the accused
Dr. Sunil Clifford DanielVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.313 Accused be informed that he
Punjab2012CriLJ4657 Prosecution can decline to give answers and his
inculpatory statements may be taken into
consideration
Basavaraj R. Patil and OthersVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.313 AND PC Act Failure of
Karnataka and OthersAIR2000SC3214 accused to offer appropriate explanation or
giving false answer may be counted as
providing a missing link
State of MaharashtraVs.Maruti Dadu Cr.P.C. S.313 Counsel cannot be examined
Kamble1988MhLJ49
Jethalal GirdharlalVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.313 Statement is not evidence
Gujarat(1984)2GLR964 Satyavir Singh RathiVs.State thr.
C.B.I.AIR2011SC1748
In Re_ Kannammal alias Maunammal Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Accused should be
92Ind. Cas.695 warned
Basavaraj R. Patil and OthersVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Advocate cannot be
Karnataka and examined but questionire for accused can be
OthersAIR2000SC3214(3JJs) given
Basavaraj R. Patil and OthersVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Counsel cannot be
Karnataka and OthersAIR2000SC3214 examined
Satyavir Singh RathiVs.State thr. Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Statement is not
C.B.I.AIR2011SC1748 evidence
Messers Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs Cr.P.C. S.317 Personal exemption when can
Messers Bhiwani Denim and Apparels be granted
Ltd.AIR2001SC3625
Hardeep Singh etc. Vs.State of Punjab and Cr.P.C. S.319 A person discharged can be
Ors. etc. etc.2014(1)SCALE241 arraigned again as accused after an inquiry as
contemplated by Section 300(5) and 398
(5JJs)
Bholu RamVs.State of Punjab and Cr.P.C. S.319 Accused can apply to
Anr.2008 Cri.L.J. 4576 SC Magistrate
Rakesh and Anr.vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.319 Accused named in FIR but
HaryanaAIR2001SC2521 excluded police can be summoned even
without cross exam of the witness
Hardeep Singh etc. etc.Vs.State of Punjab Cr.P.C. S.319
and Ors. etc. etc.2014(1)SCALE241
Hardeep Singh etc. Vs.State of Punjab and Cr.P.C. S.319 Larger Bench explained A
Ors. AIR2014SC1400 person discharged can be arraigned again as
accused after an inquiry as contemplated by
Section 300(5) and 398 (5JJs)
Hardeep Singh etc. etc.Vs.State of Punjab Cr.P.C. S.319 Larger Bench explained when
and Ors. etc. etc.AIR2014SC1400 can section 319 be resorted
Dr. S.S. KhannaVsChief Secretary, Patna Cr.P.C. S.319 Magistrate can proceed against
and Anr.AIR1983SC595(2Judges) an accused whom the Magistrate refused to
summon
Uma Shankar Vs.State of Bihar and Cr.P.C. S.319 Magistrate can take
Anr.(2010)9SCC479 cognizance against the accused named in FIR
but omitted in the charge sheet
Kishori Singh and Ors.Vs.State of Bihar Cr.P.C. S.319 Magistrate cannot issue
and Anr. AIR2000SC3725 process to FIR named but chargesheet
unnamed accused at committal stage (Two
Judges in)
Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Cr.P.C. S.319 Purpose of this power is
AnrAIR2007SC2786 explained
2012 STPL(Web) 521 SC Cr.P.C. S.320 and 482 FIR quashing When
can the HC on compromise
Bom FB Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Cr.P.C. S.320 At any stage permissible
Vs.The State of Maharashtra2008 2
MhLj856
Hirabhai Jhaverbhai vs State Of Gujarat & Cr.P.C. S.320 IPC S.324 offence before
Ors amendment is compundable
Rajesh Rajesh Kannan vs A.K. Murthy and Cr.P.C. S.320 Non-compoundable case unfit
Ors.2009-2-UC879 for conciliation SC said
Rajesh Rajesh Kannan vs A.K. Murthy and Cr.P.C. S.320 Non-compoundable case unfit
Ors.2009-2-UC879 for mediation SC said
Hirabhai JhaverbhaiVs.State of Gujarat Cr.P.C. S.320 Offence of S.324 IPC prior to
and Ors.AIR2010SC2321 amendment is compoundable
Rameshchandra J. ThakkarVs.Assandas Cr.P.C. S.320 Partly compounding is not
Parmanand Jhaveri, State of permissible
MaharashtraAIR1973SC84
Rajinder SinghVs.State (Delhi Cr.P.C. S.320 Partly compounding was
Administration)AIR1980SC1200 maintained without discussion on validity
Gian SinghVs.State of Punjab and Cr.P.C. S.320 Referring to Larger Bench as
Anr.(2010)15SCC118 S.420 IPC is compoundable and S.120B is
non compoundable
Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.320 Under S.482 non-
Maharashtra2008 2 MhLj856 compoundable offence's FIR can be quashed
Bom FB
Gian SinghVs.State of Punjab and Cr.P.C. S.320 When can the F.I.R. be
Anr.(2012)10SCC303 quashed guidelines given in
Sheonandan PaswanVs.State of Bihar and Cr.P.C. S.321 Grounds for seeking Courts
Ors.AIR1987SC877 consent for withdrawal
Sheonandan PaswanVs.State of Bihar and Cr.P.C. S.321 Withdrawal permission
Ors.AIR1987SC877 principles discussed in
A.P. High Court Cr.P.C. S.323 and 325 Magistrate shall not
commit the case merely for severe
punishment
Sudhir and ors. etc.vs.State of M.P. Cr.P.C. S.323 Sessions Judge has power to
etc.AIR2001SC826 try any offence Cross cases should be tried
by him
Khoda Bux MalVs.Ohadali Cr.P.C. S.325 Magistrate has to write an
MalAIR1949Cal308 order but not judgment
II Addl. Judicial First Class Cr.P.C. S.325 When Magistrate cannot
MagistrateVs.State of A.P.2005CriLJ1168 exceed the limit of S.29 for want of special
DB provision he has to resort to S.325 and not
323
RajagopalVs.Forest Range Cr.P.C. S.325(1) Magistrate has to record
Officer2012(1)CTC639 finding of guity and CJM cannot send back
case.
RajagopalVs.Forest Range Cr.P.C. S.325(1) Magistrate has to record
Officer2012(1)CTC639 finding of guity.
NageshVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.325(1) Magistrate to record finding
Karnataka1990CriLJ2234 and then refer to CJM
Jaikishan Kanjiwani Vs Kumar Matching Cr.P.C. S.326 and N.I. Act S.138 Evidence
Centre2011CriLJ134 and not substance of evidence is recorded
Ramilaben Trikamlal ShahTube and Allied Cr.P.C. S.326 and N.I. Act S.138 Evidence
Products and others on affidavit followed by cross. De novo not
required
Navinchandra Hiralal Desai Cr.P.C. S.326 and N.I. Act S.138 In
summary trial only substance and not entire
sentence is recorded
Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali 2012 CriLJ Cr.P.C. S.326 Denovo Trial In an extremely
4537 serious case of exceptional nature it would
occasion in failure of justice if Prosecution is
not taken to logical conclusion
Ranbir Yadav Vs State of Bihar AIR 1995 Cr.P.C. S.326 Discretion given to court to
SC 1219 read previous evidence
Emperor Vs. Maung Ragoon HC relies on Cr.P.C. S.326
Bombay
Pratibha Pandurang Salvi Vs. State of Cr.P.C. S.326 Once the Magistrate used the
Maharashtra 2010CriLJ730 discretion to try summarily, on his transfer
it should be denovo
Trial Mukesh and etc.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.326 Rajastan HC in EC Act case
Rajasthan1998CriLJ2439 Summary
EmperorDurgaprasad Chunnilal and Cr.P.C. S.326 Substance of evidence can be
Ors.AIR 1940 Nag 239 acted upon
Tippanna Koutya Mannavaddar Bombay Cr.P.C. S.326 Summary Trials Notes
DB AIR1934Bom157 Procedure
MunicipalityNagindas Maganlal AIR 1953 Cr.P.C. S.326 Surat Borough
Bom 29
J.V. Baharuni vs. State of Gujarat (2014) Cr.P.C. S.326(3) and NI Act S.138 and 142
10 SCC 494 If the evidence was not recorded summarily
but fully then no need of denovo
Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah and Cr.P.C. S.326(3) and S.138 NI Act Pursis of
Anr.Vs.Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal and accused would not make legal to read
Anr.AIR2011SC3076 evidence recorded by previous Magistrate
Shyambahadur Purshottam SharmaVs.Shri. Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Denovo Trial not necessary
Sudhakar Narshu PoojaryMANU-MH-
1393-2013
Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Justice Mridula Bhatkar's
judgment on summary trial
K. JayachandranVsO. Nargeese and Cr.P.C. S.326(3) No need of denovo trial
Anr.1987CriLJ1997
Abdul Sukkur Barbhuiya Vs. the State of Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Sessions Court to record
Assam and others, Gauhati HC dd evidence denovo
24.01.2012 CrlRevP1922011
Reserve Bank Employees Association, Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Succeeding Judge can
NagpurVs.State of Maharashtra and proceed (Case under old CR.P.C.)
Ors.AIR1969Bom199
State of Punjab Vs.Gurmit Singh and Cr.P.C. S.327 In camera proceeding
Others AIR1 996 SC 1393 directions
Sakshi Vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR Cr.P.C. S.327 In camera trial and not to
2004 SC 3566 disclose the name of the victim
The State of MaharashtraVs.Subhashsing Cr.P.C. S.334 Acquittal case Course to be
Shalikramsingh adopted while acquitting on insanity
Raghuwanshi1995(1)MhLj358 ground
Ms. Leena Balkrishna NairVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.338 and IPC S.84 Accused was
Maharashtra2010CriLJ3392 acquitted and released under section 338 of
Cr.P.C.
State of MaharashtraVs.Sukhdeo Singh Cr.P.C. S.342 (3) Answers given by accused
and anotherAIR1992SC2100 may be taken into consideration at enquiry or
trial
D.K. Basu Vs.State of West Cr.P.C. S.342 Compensation to the victim
BengalAIR1997SC610
Arun Paswan, S.I.Vs.State of Bihar and Cr.P.C. S.345 Contempt of Court by police
Ors.JT2003(10)SC459 officer
The Superintendent of PoliceVs.The Cr.P.C. S.349 and 91 Notice should be issued
Judicial Magistrate Court, before taking action
CheyyarIV(2015)CCR502(Mad.)
Dayal Singh and Ors.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.353 Court is competent to direct
UttaranchalAIR2012SC3046 departmental action aginst erring officers
Satya NarainVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.353 Judgment pronounced in
Rajasthan1987WLN(UC) Raj 458 absence of accused was upheld as he was
present during the trial
A.T. PrakashanVs.The Excise Inspector Cr.P.C. S.353 Misquoting of the Section or
and Anr.2014ALLMR(Cri)1945 misapplying the provisions has caused no
prejudice Hence conviction maintained
State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai Supreme Cr.P.C. S.354 Acquittal case A finding needs
(2014)5SCC108 to be recorded in each acquittal case whether
the lapse was innocent or blameworthy
State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai Supreme Cr.P.C. S.354 Acquittal case A finding needs
Court jjment dated 07.01.2014 to be recorded in each acquittal case whether
the lapse was innocent or blameworthy
Complainant GaneshaVs.Sharanappa and Cr.P.C. S.354 and 154 The person who
anr.AIR2014SC1198 lodges the FIR be called the Informant and
not the
Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Cr.P.C. S.354(3) Court has to discharge its
JosephVs.State of constitutional obligations and honour
Maharashtra(2014)4SCC69 legislative policy by awarding appropriate
sentence, that is will of people
2012_STPL(Web)_338_SC R.MOHAN Cr.P.C. S.357 and S.138 NI Act
VS VIJAY KUMAR Compensation default sentence
R. VijayanVs.Baby and Cr.P.C. S.357 Compensation in S.138 N.I.
Anr.AIR2012SC528 Act cases
R. VijayanVs.Baby and Cr.P.C. S.357 Compensation in S.138 N.I.
Anr.AIR2012SC528 Act cases should include costs and loss
Ankush Shivaji GaikwadVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.357 Every Courts Mandatory duty
MaharashtraAIR2013 SC 2454 to consider compensation
Ram Pal Vs. T.S. Thakur and Adarsh Cr.P.C. S.357 State to compensation in
Kumar Goes JT2015(2)SC496 S.304A IPC where accused is unable to pay
R. MohanVs.A.K. Vijaya Cr.P.C. S.357(3) (Simple) Imprisonment in
Kumar2012CriLJ3953 default of compensation was justified
Dilip S. DhanukarVs.Kotak Mahindra Co. Cr.P.C. S.357(3) Compensation to be less
Ltd. and Anr.MANU-SC-8289-2007 than recoverable in civil court
K.A. Abbas H.S.A.Vs.Sabu Joseph and Cr.P.C. S.357(3) Default sentence of
Anr.(2010)6SCC230 compensation is legal
2012_STPL(Web)_338_SC Cr.P.C. S.357(3) jail if compensation is
unpaid explained
Sunil alias Pona Tolaram Pore (Varma) Cr.P.C. S.360 not applicable to Maharashtra
Vs. State of Maharashtra Probation not available for S.326 IPC
Chandreshwar SharmaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.361 Court shall give reasons for
Bihar(2000)9SCC245 denial of benefit of probation
Eliamma and Anr.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.361 Mandatory to give reasons
Karnataka(2009)11SCC42
State of PunjabVs.Prem Sagar and Cr.P.C. S.361 Sentence would depend on
Ors.2008CriLJ3533 many factors
Rupam Pralhad Bhartiya Vs. State of Cr.P.C. S.361 Special Reasons to be given
Maharashtra and Anr.MANU-MH-1005- for not granting probation HC increased fine
2011 to one lakh
State of PunjabVs.Davinder Pal Singh Cr.P.C. S.362 High Court has no power
Bhullar and Ors under S.482 to review
Minu Kumari and Anr.Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.362 Magistrate can drop
Bihar and Ors.AIR2006SC1937 proceeding against against whom process
was issued by mistake
Mohd. Chaman Vs.State (N.C.T. of Delhi) Cr.P.C. S.366 propositions to be kept in mind
2001CriLJ725 for determination of question of death
sentence
In Re_ The Additional District Judge-cum- Cr.P.C. S.374 and 9 Additional Sessions
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam Judge can hear an appeal from Assistant
2003-1-LW(Crl)77 Sessions Judge if punishment was less than 7
years
State of MP V Bacchudas alias Balram and Cr.P.C. S.374 Appeallate Court duties
Ors - AIR2007SC1236
Dilip S. DhanukarVs.Kotak Mahindra Co. Cr.P.C. S.374 Right of appeal against
Ltd. and Anr.MANU-SC-8289-2007 conviction cannot be curtailed But appellate
court can impose condition for suspending
sentence
Messers Pioneer Castings and another Vs Cr.P.C. S.374(2) Appeal lies to Sessions
Employees State Insurance Corporation Court and not HC
Notes Cr.P.C. S.374(2) Appeal to High Court when
lies
Sudhir Niranjan Chakre Vs.Rajesh Ramdas Cr.P.C. S.374(4) and 2(wa) and
Wankhade2014ALLMR(Cri)4624 407(1)(c)(iv)_ Victim can appeal to Sessions
Court and State to High Court against
 acquittal Parties can pray high court to
transfer
The State of MaharashtraVs.Hanmant Cr.P.C. S.378 Against acquittal appeal lies to
Prabhakar Waidande and Ors.MANU-MH- sessions court in state case to high court in
0868-2006 complaint case
State (Delhi Cr.P.C. S.378 Limitation is 90 days for
Administration)vs.DharampalAIR2001SC2 Appeal by complainant to HC against
924 acquittal in Food Act case
EmperorVs.Lakshman Chavji Cr.P.C. S.381 Assistant and Additional
NarangikarAIR1931Bom313 Sessions Judges exercise jurisdiction of
Sessions Court
K.S. PandurangaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.384 to 386 Appeal once admitted -
KarnatakaAIR2013SC2164 has to be decided on merits even in absence
of accused
Kishori LalVs.Rupa and Cr.P.C. S.389 Appellate Court shall consider
Ors.(2004)7SCC638 nature of allegations etc for granting bail
State of PunjabVs.Deepak Cr.P.C. S.389 High court recalled its order
MattuAIR2008SC35
Kishori LalVs.Rupa and Cr.P.C. S.389(1) Appellate Court shall
Ors.(2004)7SCC638 consider nature of allegations etc for granting
bail
Mayuram Subramanian Cr.P.C. S.389(3) is applicable only when
SrinivasanVs.C.B.I.AIR2006SC2449 there is right to appeal
Bondada Gajapathy RaoVs.State of Andhra Cr.P.C. S.394 Old S.431 When appellant has
PradeshAIR1964SC1645 died Appeal against fine only can be allowed
to be continued but not against imprisonment
Raghu Raj Singh RoushaVs.Shivam Cr.P.C. S.397 against order refusing S.156
Sundaram Promoters ((2009)2SCC363 directing for inquiry Accused to be
impleaded
Hasmukh J. JhaveriVs.Shella Dadlani and Cr.P.C. S.397 and 146 Not interlocutory
another1981CriLJ958
Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane Vs.Chandrasen Cr.P.C. S.397 and 156(3) Interference with
Jagdevrao Deshmukh 2008CriLJ3761 order under Section 156(3) should normally
be confined to cases in which there are some
very exceptional circumstances
State of KeralaVs.K.M. Charia Abdullah Cr.P.C. S.397 Distinction between Appeal
and Co.AIR1965SC1585 and Revision
K. Chinnaswamy ReddyVs.State of Andhra Cr.P.C. S.397 Evi Act S.27 misinterpreted by
PradeshAIR1962SC1788 appellate Court Rehearing ordered
Madhu LimayeVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.397 Interlocutory order test
MaharashtraAIR1978SC47 explained
D. StephensVs.NosibollaAIR1951SC196 Cr.P.C. S.397 Jurisdiction not to be lightly
exercised when invoked by a private
complainant against an order of acquittal
against which the Government has a right of
appeal under section
Madhu LimayeVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.397
MaharashtraAIR1978SC47
Mohit alias Sonu and Anr.Vs.State of U.P. Cr.P.C. S.397 Order which substantially
and Anr.MANU-SC-0633-2013 affects the right of the accused, or decides
certain rights of the parties cannot be said to
be an interlocutory order
Raj Kapoor and Ors.Vs.State and Cr.P.C. S.397 Petition under section 482
Ors.AIR1980SC258 converted to revision
Mr. Joaquim Anthony D'Souza Anthony Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision against interim
D'SouzaVs.Mrs. Milinda Rosy D'Souza maintenace tenable
YogeshVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision against order
Maharashtra2015(1)BomCR(Cri)750 directing complainant to remain present for
verification is not tenable
Kaptan Singh and others Vs.State of M.P. Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision order setting aside
and anotherAIR1997SC2485 acquittal and retrial direction upheld- I.O.
findings not evidence
State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision
Kuldip Singh and Others, 2004 (7) SCC
659
K.K. Patel and Anr.Vs.State of Gujarat Cr.P.C. S.397 Test whether interlocutory
and Anr.AIR2000SC3346
Madhu LimayeVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.397 What is interim order is
MaharashtraAIR1978SC47 explained
Kaptan Singh and others Vs.State of M.P. Cr.P.C. S.401 Scope of revision explained
and anotherAIR1997SC2485
In Re_ District and Sessions Judge Raisen
Cr.P.C. S.409(2) Sessions Judge has power
2005(3)MPLJ26 to transfer partheard sessions case without
hearing
EmperorVs.Chunilal Cr.P.C. S.412 (Old) Accused who pleaded
Hargovan1926(28)BOMLR1023 guilty can contend that his conviction was
illegal
Mr. Parkar Hasan Abdul GafoorVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.413 Surety is not automatically
Maharashtra & others1999(5)BomCR481 discharged
DhanapalVs.State by Public Prosecutor Cr.P.C. S.417 Criminal Appellate Court
2009 Cri.L.J. 4647 When can interefere
Aher Raja KhimaVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.417 It is not enough to take a
SaurashtraAIR1956SC217 different view of the evidence and there must
also be substantial and compelling reasons
for holding that the trial Court was wrong
Shankar Kerba Jadhav and Ors.Vs.The Cr.P.C. S.423(1) High Court set aside
State of MaharashtraAIR1971SC840 acquittal by sessions. It can exceed original
sentence Appellate Courts Power of
punishment.doc
M.R. Kudva Appellant vs State Of Andhra Cr.P.C. S.427 Concurrent plea has been
Pradesh 2007 (1) Crimes 50 (SC) rejected as offences were different
Sadashiv Chhokha Sable Sadashiv Cr.P.C. S.427 Cr.P.C. Undergoing sentence
Chhokha Sable vs State Of means
Maharashtra1993 CriLJ 1469
Bapurao Trimbakrao SonawaneVs.The Cr.P.C. S.427 Different cheques of same
State of Maharashtra and The transaction with common notice can be trial
Superintendent of at one trial
Police2009(111)BOMLR1271
Emperor vs Waman Dinkar Kelkar 20 Cr.P.C. S.427
BOMLR 998
Rajendra B. Choudhari vs State Of Cr.P.C. S.427 Four cases of S.138 NI Act
Maharashtra And Anr 2007CriLJ844 consecutive sentence justified
Gulab Gaibu Shaikh Vs The State Of Cr.P.C. S.427
Maharashtra 2001ALLMR(Cri)1404
Ranjit Singh vs Union Territory Of Cr.P.C. S.427
Chandigarh AIR 1991 SC 2296
Cr.P.C. S.427 Sentence No Policy Soman
Vs State of Kerala 2012(12)SCALE719
Cr.P.C. S.427 State Of Maharashtra vs
Raju Dadaba Borge 2001 CriLJ 3638
Cr.P.C. S.427 Sunil Anandrao Sawant Vs
Government Of Maharashtra
Ammavasai and AnrVs.Inspector of Police Cr.P.C. S.427 Totality of sentence has been
and Ors.AIR2000SC3544 considered
Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Cr.P.C. S.427 Totality of sentence has to be
Ahmed BhattiVs.Assistant Collector of considered
Customs AIR1988SC2143
Sadashiv Chhokha Sable Sadashiv Cr.P.C. S.427 Undergoing sentence means
Chhokha Sable vs State Of
Maharashtra1993 CriLJ 1469
M.R. KudvaVs.State of Andhra Cr.P.C. S.427 Whether concurrent or
PradeshAIR2007SC568 consecutive has to be considered by the latter
Court convicting
Narayanan NambeesanVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.428 Courts should specify the pre-
Maharashtra1974(76)BOMLR690 conviction detention. Procedural law is
retrospective gives benefit to all convicts
Shiv Mohan SinghVs.The State (Delhi Cr.P.C. S.428 Death sentence validity upheld
Administration)AIR1977SC949
Namdeo @ Ram Krushna KhotVs.The Cr.P.C. S.428 Set off if not given simple
State of Maharashtra2006(6)MhLj783 misc. application is sufficient
State of Maharashtra and Anr.vs.Najakat Cr.P.C. S.428 Set off is entitled for the
Alia Mubarak Ali AIR2001SC2255 period of detention in the instant crime
though during same period he was
undergoing sentence in another case
Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Najakat Alia Cr.P.C. S.428 Set off of the detention in
Mubarak Ali AIR2001SC2255 sentenced case is available even if accused
was simultaneous undergoing sentence in
other case
Dinesh M.N. (S.P.)Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.429(2) Trial is not likely to be
GujaratAIR2008SC2318 concluded in the near future or the period of
incarceration would not be sufficient for
granting bail
SC in Swamy Shraddananda Murali Cr.P.C. S.433 Life imprisonment with
Manohar Mishra vs Vs.State Of Karnataka direction for rest of life
on 22 July, 2008
State of Haryana and Ors.Vs.Jagdish and Cr.P.C. S.433A Case of convict was to be
HarpalAIR2010SC1690Remission considered on strength of policy on existing
date of his conviction
State of Haryana and Ors.Vs.Jagdish and Cr.P.C. S.433A For remission policy as on
HarpalAIR2010SC1690 conviction date would prevail. If beneficial
to convict policy as on date of consideration
also applicable
Mulla and Anr.Vs.State of Uttar Cr.P.C. S.433A Life imprisonment is for 20
PradeshAIR2010SC942 years unless directed otherwise
Rasiklal Vs. Kisore Khanchand Cr.P.C. S.436 Bail in bailable offences is rule
WadhwaniAIR2009SC1341
Salim Ikramuddin Ansari and Cr.P.C. S.436 Court to call information
Anr.Vs.Officer-in-Charge, Borivali Police whether the accused was released on bail or
Station and Ors.2004(4)MhLj725 not
Sukhwant Singh & Ors. Vs. State Of Cr.P.C. S.436 Interim Bail is inherent
Punjab (2009) 7 SCC 559
Siddharam Satlingappa MhetreVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.436
Maharashtra and Ors.AIR2011SC312
Monit MalhotraVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.436 The accused in bailable
Rajasthan1991CriLJ806 offence bailed out by police need not apply
to the Maigsitrate for fresh bail
Siddharam Satlingappa MhetreVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.436 to 450
Maharashtra and Ors.AIR2011SC312
Sandeep Jain Vs National Capital Territory Cr.P.C. S.437 Accused cannot be kept in jail
of Delhi Rep. by Secretary, Home Deptt. for failure to make payment as per bail order.
(18.01.2000 - SC)
UttamkumarVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.437 and 439 Accused again
Maharashtra2012BomCR(Cri)697 arrested for added offence
Uttamkumar Vs. The State of Maharashtra Cr.P.C. S.437 and 439 After bail police
2012 Bom C.R.(Cri) 697 added life or death section Magistrate cannot
release otherwise he can additional surety
Bom HC Ambarish Rangshahi Patnigere vs Cr.P.C. S.437 and I.P.C. S.409 JMFC has
The State Of Maharashtra power to grant bail
2012(1)MhLj900
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V. Cr.P.C. S.437 Bail cancelled accused rected
Vijay Sai Reddy AIR2013SC2216 to surrender
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs Cr.P.C. S.437 Bail considerations
Cbi
State of MaharashtraVs.Kaushar Yasin Cr.P.C. S.437 Bail for S.326 by Magistrate
Qureshi and another1996(2)MhLj485 sustained, bail for S.302 cancelled
Sundeep Kumar BafnaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.437 Before taking the accused into
Maharashtra and Anr.2014(4)SCALE215 judicial custody there would be arrest
Nandini BhatnagarVs.State Govt. of NCT Cr.P.C. S.437 Condition not to go abroad
of DelhiI(2013)DMC495 without permission deleted
Km. Hema MishraVs.State of U.P. and Cr.P.C. S.437 High Court shall not direct
Ors.AIR2014SC1066 subordinate to decide bail application on
same day Interim bail is permissible,
UP FB in Amarawati and Anr. Cr.P.C. S.437 High Court should ordinarily
(Smt.)Vs.State of U.P.2005CriLJ755 not direct any subordinate court to decide the
bail application the same day-
Sukhwant singh vs state of punjab Cr.P.C. S.437 Interim Bail is Inherent Power
2010CriLJ1435 and (2009) 7 SCC 559
The Balasaheb Satbhai Merchant ... vs The Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate can grant bail in
State Of Maharashtra 2012BomCR(Cri)841 S.409 IPC as triable by himself held by
Justice Potdar
EmperorVs.Rautmal Kanumal Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has inherent power
MarwadiAIR1940Bom40 to cancel bail which was granted by another
Magistrate for the smooth trial
Batta Hanuman Vishwanath Nehare Vs. Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has no power of
State Of Maharashtra 2001(3)MhLj465 bail in life term cases held by Justice
Ramji Vs.State of Punjab MANU-PH- Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has power to grant
0150-2001 bail in offences triable by him PH HC
Mr. Ishan Vasant Deshmukh alias Prasad Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has power to grant
Vasant KulkarniVs.The State of bail in S.409 and 467 IPC case
Maharashtra2011(2)MhLj361R.C. Chavan,
J
Allahabad HC Ram Bharoshi and Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has power to grant
Ors.Vs.State of U.P. and bail in sessions triable offence not punishable
Anr.2004(3)ACR2563 with life or death
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs N.C.T., Delhi AIR Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate shall not grant bail
2001 SC 1444 in sessions triable offence Anticipatory bail
for lessor offence
Jyoti Kaut Kohli Vs. State of Maha Cr.P.C. S.437 Powers of Magistrate referred
for larger bench
Dr. Raghubir SharanVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.437 Second Opinion -When
BiharAIR1964SC1 medical reason is a ground for bail the
Magistrate can call for detailed report from
medical officer
Ganeshanan Lakshmanan and Anr.Vs.The Cr.P.C. S.437 Solvency Certificate need not
State of MaharashtraMANU-MH-0345- be insisted for always
2009
Dr. Raghubir SharanVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.437 When medical reason is a
BiharAIR1964SC1 ground for bail the Magistrate can call for
detailed report from medical officer
Santosh Bhaurao RautVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.437(1)(i) attracted even if the law
Maharashtra1989MhLJ162 prescribes death or imprisonment for life as
the maximum
BhagwatVs.State of Maharashtra and Anr Cr.P.C. S.437(5) Cancellation of bail for
breach of condition of attending police
station was set aside
Union of India and others Vs.Major Cr.P.C. S.437(6) Trial commences when the
General Madan Lal Yadav AIR 1996 SC matter is posted for evidence
1340
Cr.P.C. S.437A Allahabad HC Syed
ArmanVs.State of U.P.2012ACR1681
Balkrishna Mahadev LadVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.437A and 390 Accused even after
Maharashtra2012BomCR(Cri)300 acquittal can be detained for not furnishing
surety
Sareena, O.P.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.437A not mandatory
KeralaILR2013(1)Kerala537
2012_STPL(Web)_470_SC Cr.P.C. S.438 An Absconding accused is not
entitled for anticipatory bail
Rakesh Baban BorhadeVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.438 Anticipatory bail cannot be
MaharashtraDecided On_ 19.11.2014 granted as a rule but subject to satisfaction
that the accused would not misuse
Asaram Sitaram PadoleVs.Yadaorao Cr.P.C. S.438 Anticipatory bail continues till
Raghobaji Hatwar and cancellation or trial is over
Ors.1991(93)BOMLR994
Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. vs. Union Cr.P.C. S.438 Anticipatory bail refused in
of India and ors.(2002)2SCC210 while collored crimes of cheating in
numerous states
State State of Assam and Anr.Vs.Dr. Cr.P.C. S.438 Application to be heard by the
Brojen Gogol and Ors.AIR1997SC4101 High Court having jurisdiction over the place
of offence with notice to that
Sumit MehtaVs.State of N.C.T. of Delhi Cr.P.C. S.438 Deposit condition deleted
J. Bhatkar ordjud Cr.P.C. S.438 does not lie against non-
bailable warrant by Magistrate
MP HC Cr.P.C. S.438 High Court not to grant
Dr._Pradeep_Kumar_Soni_vs_State_Of_M anticipatory bail for crime in another state
adhya_Pradesh_on_13_March,_1990
Mukesh Kishanpuria Vs. State of West Cr.P.C. S.438 Interim Bail -Grant of regular
Bengal 2010 (4) SCALE 649 bail includes power to grant interim bail
pending main application
Harjit SinghVs.Union of India (UOI) and Cr.P.C. S.438 Jurisdiction lies with the court
Ors.1994CriLJ3134 having local jurisdiction
Dr. Pradeep Kumar SoniVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.438 Jurisdiction lies with the court
Madhya Pradesh1990CriLJ2055 where offence took place
State of Assam and Anr.Vs.Dr. Brojen Cr.P.C. S.438 Jurisdiction_ Application to be
Gogol and Ors.AIR1997SC4101 heard by the High Court having jurisdiction
over the place of offence with notice to that
State
Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. vs.Union Cr.P.C. S.438 Not applicable to person
of India and ors already arrested and in prison
Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Cr.P.C. S.438 When can anticipatory bail
Ors.Vs.State of PunjabAIR1980SC1632 granted is explained
Niranjan Singh and Anr.Vs.Prabhakar Cr.P.C. S.439 Appearance of accused before
Rajaram Kharote and Ors.AIR1980SC785 the Court amounts to custody
C.B.I.New Delhi Vs. Abhishek Verma Cr.P.C. S.439 Bail matter
Anilkumar vs State Of Maharashtra on Cr.P.C. S.439 Cancellation of bail
15.11.1989
Anwari BegumVs.Sher Mohammad and Cr.P.C. S.439 Factors to be considered for
Anr.AIR2005SC3530 bail are discussed
Amarawati and Anr. (Smt.)Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.439 Interim bail can be granted on
U.P.2005CriLJ755 the same day UP FB in
Neeru YadavVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.439 Parity ground is not absolute
U.P.2014(14)SCALE59 Antecedents of applicant may warrant
rejection of bail
Niranjan Singh & Anr vs Prabhakar Cr.P.C. S.439 Submitting to the Court also
Rajaram Kharote & ors 1980 AIR 785 amounts to custody
Sundeep Kumar BafnaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.439 Surrender before Sessions
Maharashtra and Anr.MANU-SC-0239- Court and bail application
2014
Dinesh Singh Arjun SinghVs.State of U.P. Cr.P.C. S.439(1) Bail order cancelled by
and Pramod Singh Bhagwan Singh High court itself
Jai KrishanVs.The State of Punjab and Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Bail obtained by fraud
Others2010(1)RCR(Criminal)249 Punjab
Dinesh M_N_ (S_P_) vs State Of Gujarat Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Bail when to cancel
on 28 April, 2008
Puran, Shekhar And Anr vs Rambilas & Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Cancellation of bail
Anr., State Of ... on 3 May, 2001 justified
Puran, Shekhar And Anr vs Rambilas & Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Cancellation of bail
Anr., State Of ... on 3 May, 2001
Dr_ Narendra K Amin vs State Of Gujarat Cr.P.C. S.439(2) When can the bail be
And Anr on 28 April, 2008 cancelled
State (Delhi Administration)Vs.Sanjay Cr.P.C. S.439(2)_ Bail can be cancelled on
GandhiAIR1978SC961 allegation of tampering Bombay case
referred in
Free Legal Aid CommitteeVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.441(3) and 209 Bail bond is for
BiharAIR1982SC1463 appearance before Sessions Court also
Mr. Sajal Kumar Mitra and Ors.Vs.The Cr.P.C. S.445 Pending surety verification
State of Maharashtra2011CriLJ2744 Magistrates has power to release accused on
cash surety and thereafter asking him to
furnish solvent sureties
Bhoja Babu Salian vs State Of Cr.P.C. S.446 Forfeit first and then issue
Maharashtra1983 (2) BomCR 165 show cause notice to recover amount
Ghulam Mehdi vs State Of Rajasthan Cr.P.C. S.446 Show cause notice necessary
AIR1960SC1185
Divisional Forest Officer and Anr.Vs.G.V. Cr.P.C. S.451 and 452 explained in Forest
Sudhakar Rao and Ors.MANU-SC-0069- Act Case
1985
General Insurance Council and Cr.P.C. S.451 and 457 Supreme Court
Ors.Vs.State of Andhra Pradesh and directions regarding custody of seized
Ors.2010CriLJ2883 properties
Delhi Excise Act State (NCT of Cr.P.C. S.451 Magistrate has no jurisdiction
Delhi)Vs.Narender MANU-SC-0010-2014 to release vehicle under
State Bank of IndiaVs.Rajendra Kumar Cr.P.C. S.451 Party adversely affected
Singh and Ors.AIR1969SC401 should be heard before the Court makes an
order for return of the seized property
State (NCT of Cr.P.C. S.457 and Excise Act Due to
Delhi)Vs.Narender2014ALLMR(Cri)736 confiscation clause Magistrate has no
jurisdiction to release vehicle
State of KarnatakaVs.K.A. Cr.P.C. S.457 and Forest Act Magistrate has
KunchindammedAIR2002SC1875 no jurisdiction to give interim custody
Navin Vasantraj Modh Vs State of Cr.P.C. S.457 Aplication was directed to be
Maharashtra 2012BomCR(Cri)685 decided at the end
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai And C.M. ....vs Cr.P.C. S.457 Directions regarding disposal
State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2002 of seized properties
State of U.P. and Anr.Vs.Lalloo Cr.P.C. S.457 is not applicable in view of
Singh(2007)7SCC334 S.50 of Wild Life Act
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Cr.P.C. S.457 Supreme Court guidelines for
MudaliarVs.State of disposal of properties
GujaratAIR2003SC638
Prakash Tarachand SakhreVs.Ashok Cr.P.C. S.457 When it is proved that T.T.
Pundloikrao Wajge and forms were submitted non-transfer of
Anr.2001CriLJ3024 registration of vehicle does not matter
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs.V.K. Cr.P.C. S.465(2) Court to consider whether
SehgalAIR1999SC3706 objection had raised objection PC Act S.19
Japani SahooVs.Chandra Sekhar Cr.P.C. S.468 Date of filing complaint and
MohantyAIR2007SC2762 not cognizance be counted
Limination Arun Vyas & Anr vs Anita Cr.P.C. S.468 Limitaion Rational and
Vyas on 14 May, 1999 Purpose behind
Japani SahooVs.Chandra Sekhar Cr.P.C. S.468 Limitation Date of filing
MohantyAIR2007SC2762 complaint and not cognizance be counted
State Of Punjab vs Sarwan Singh1981 Cr.P.C. S.468(2) Bar of limitation on
SCALE (1)619 prosecutions was clearly to prevent the
parties from filing cases after a long time
Jethmal Himmatmal Jain and Cr.P.C. S.473 Delay should be explained in
othersVs.State of the complaint or separate application and
Maharashtra1981CriLJ1813 Court should pass speaking order
Rakesh Kumar JainVs.State Through CBI Cr.P.C. S.473 Delay stood explained
AIR 2000 SC 2754
Cr.P.C. S.473 Interest of justice cannot be
interpreted to mean in the interest of
prosecution
Mrs. Sarah MathewVs.The Institute of Cr.P.C. S.473 Notice to accused before
Cardio Vascular DiseasesMANU-SC- taking cognizance is not contemplated
1210-2013
Kanwardeepsingh Harbansingh Cr.P.C. S.475 and Court Martial (A.o.J)
BediVs.The State of Rules, 1952 Notice to Commandant
Maharashtra2010CriLJ315 necessary
Cr.P.C. S.475 Central Govt to decide
Military Authority or Criminal Court
Accused did not ask for counsel hence no
prejudice
Cr.P.C. S.482 and 397 Bombay HC Ramona
M. Chandiramani Revision against issue
process order tenable
Kailash Shreekisan ChaurasiaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.482 Avinash Madhukar
Maharashtra & Ors.2012BomCR(Cri)83 Mukhedkar vs. The State of Maharashtra
NOT FOLLOWED
Modilal Kaluram Kachhara and Cr.P.C. S.482 Case transfer from one
etc.Vs.State of Maharashtra MANU-MH- Magistrate to another Magistrate rejected
0041-1988
Abasaheb Yadav Honmane And vs Cr.P.C. S.482 No compounding of
The State Of Maharashtra on 12 March, noncompoundable offences
2008
Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia & Ors_ Vs_ Cr.P.C. S.482 When can FIR be quashed
State Of Punjab & Ors_ on 5 May, 2009
Gian SinghVs.State of Punjab and Cr.P.C. S.482 Which offences can be
Anr.2012BomCR(Cri)428 quashed SC in
Amrut GajbhiyeVs. The State of Cr.P.C. S.499(1) Old Code Accused did not
Maharashtra1974CriLJ1075 execute PRBond Hence, surety not
enforceable Mahadeo
Rengaswami NaickerVs.Muruga Cr.P.C. S.511 Old Code Judge must watch
NaickenAIR1954Mad169 that justice triumphs
Talab Haji HussainVs.Madhukar Cr.P.C. S.561A (Old Section) High Court
Purshottam Mondkar and can cancel bail in bailable offence
Anr.AIR1958SC376
State of GujaratVs.Krushnmorari Cr.P.C. S.Pleading guilty After explaining
Ramkrushna Gupta and charge Court should inform about minimum
Ors(1988)2GLR965 sentence unless special reasons are shown
The State Of Maharashtra vs Manik Mohan Cr.P.C. T.I. Parade and purpose No provision
Gaikwad on 26 November, 2008 in Cr.P.C. which obliges investigation
agency to hold identification parade
Sanction Matajog DobeyVs.H.C. Cr.PC. S.197 Constitution Bench on
BhariAIR1956SC44 necessity of
Banslochan Lal and How to deal with certain advocates
Anr.Vs.EmperorAIR1930Pat195
Human Rights CommissionVs.State of Fair Trial and About Witnesses protection
Gujarat and Ors.(2009)6SCC342 National
Nanak ChandVs.The State of I.P.C. S.34 AND 149 Distinction is explained
PunjabAIR1955SC274
Ramesh Vithal PatilVs.State of Karnataka IPC S.304B and 498A conviction under
and Ors.2014(2)Crimes227(SC) section 306
K. Prema S. Rao and Anr.Vs.Yadla IPC S.304B charged but convicted for
Srinivasa Rao and OrsAIR2003SC11 S.498A and 306
State of MaharashtraVs.Vishwanath IPC S.411 and Police Act S.124 and Railway
Tukaram Umale and Ors.AIR1979SC1825 Property Act S.3 Possession of property need
not be necessarily a subsisting possession
Union of India (UOI) and Anr.Vs.B.N. JMFC has jurisdiction throughout District
Ananti Padmanabiah etc.AIR1971SC1836
Madhav RaojiVs.StateAIR1952Bom385 M.V. Act Old S.113 Conviction upheld
though summons were served after 28 days
Ashok Gyanchand Vohra vs The State Of MCOCA S.9 and 23 Private Complaint
Maharashtra And Anr tenable
Kartar SinghVs.State of Mens rea and Law and Order and Pith and
Punjab(1994)3SCC569 Substance
Sau Devakibai Vs State of Maharashtra MRTP Act S.142 Prosecution not tenable for
Bombay HC decided on 24.07.2014 want of previous sanction
Ramesh vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 Murder of Money Lender Case
February, 2011
Mahadeo Amrut GajbhiyeVs. The State of Old Cr.P.C. S.499(1) Accused did not
Maharashtra1974CriLJ1075 execute PRBond Hence, surety not
enforceable
Association Vs.Union of India (UOI) PCPNDT Circular for online information
Through its Secretary,AIR2011Bom171 was upheld Radiological and Imaging
Diwan BhaiVsUnion of India and Plea not signed by accused no interference
OrsMANU DE 1823 2001
Thomas DanaVs.The State of Penalty and Punishment difference
PunjabAIR1959SC375
Champaklal GaneshmalVs.The State of Police Act S.124 Possession of foreign made
MaharashtraAIR1975SC160 wrist watches unexplained Hence conviction
upheld
Aher Raja Khima vs The State Of Police Credibility
Saurashtra on 22 December, 1955
The_State_Of_Maharashtra_And_Etc._..._ Prisoners Act S.29(2) Not applicable to
vs_Saeed_Sohail_Sheikh_Etc._Etc._on_2_ undertrial prisoners
November,_2012
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma ROLE Prosecutor's role explained and Delay in
OF PROSECUTOR recording the statement of the witnesses do
not necessarily discredit their testimonies
Shri Sandeep Indravadan SagarVs.State of Rubber stamp use -mentioned
Maharashtra and others decided on
10.01.2013
The Food InspectorVs.M. Pandarinath and Sanction and Consent Explained
Anr.1992(2)APLJ396
Hardeep Singh SohalVs.State of Punjab TADA S.15(1) Confession cannot be used
through(2004)11SCC612 against coaccused in other than joint trial

FOR MORE MATERIALS

CONTACT WHATSAPP NUMBER : 6301767216, 9596839008

PREPARED BY LETSLEARN THELAW & LAWNOTES.IN