Nature & Importance of Criminal Procedure System in India:

- Uniform code to simplify the procedure and to speed up the trials

- 3 basic principles
1. An accused shall get a fair trial
2. Every effort should be made to avoid delay in investigation & trials
3. The procedure should not be complicated and must be fair to poorest sections of the society
- SC in Iqbal Ismail Sodawala v. State of Maharashtra : it is the procedure that spells much of the
difference between rule of law and the rule of whim and caprice.

Criminal Justice System in India :

On the Executive side

District Magistrate
(Under him)- Additional DM
Sub-Divisional Magistrate
Under him 2
-Executive Magistrate
-Special Executive Magistrate

Key Terms

Investigation : S.2(h) :
“investigation” includes all
proceedings under this Code for
the collection of evidence
conducted by a Police Officer or
by any person (other than a
Magistrate ) who is authorised in
this behalf.
SC has viewed the investigation of
an offence as generally consisting
of :
(1) Proceeding to the spot
(2) Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case;
(3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender;
(4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of
(a) examination of various persons
(b) Search of laces or seizures
(5)Formation of the opinion whether on the material collected there is a case and if so necessary steps to file
chargesheet under S.173.

-Then if investigation is proceedings by the police what is Inquiry ?

-It is proceedings by Magistrate or Court, prior to trial .
-It may either in respect to offence or not of offence but investigation is always regarding offence
-Thirdly object of investigation is to collect evidence but object of inquiry is to check the veracity of facts.

-Duty to inform & assit police - S.39 : any person aware about the commission or intention .. offence shall,
without any reasonable excuse inform the police.

-Bailable & Non-Bailable offence : S.2(a) “b.o” means which is shown as bailable in First Schedule ,or
made bailable by law. & “non. B. O “ means any other offence.

B.o : petty offences which generally fo not alarm the society. Bail can be granted by police also
n.b.o : serious in comparison- bail matter of discretion of the courts

-Cognizable & Non-cognizable :S. 2(c) “c.o” means for which ,a police officer may, in accordance with the
First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force arrest without warrant.
Offences for which special authority is given to special officers are not cognizable offences.
S.2(I) : “n.c.o”- cannot arrest without warrant

-INQUIRY v. TRIAL

S.2(g): Inquiry” means other than trial conducted by..

Proceedings prior to framing of charge ,which do not result in conviction
4 differences
1.trial relates to offence. But …
2. Inquiry does not culminate in conviction or acquittal
3.inquiry precedes trial and trial follows inquiry
4.trial is examination and determination of a cause.

-Complaint
• S.2(d) :means allegation .. orally/written ..to a magistrate …known/unknown has committed an offence.It
is not a police report
• 154. Information in cognizable cases.--
• (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer
in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over
to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid,
shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by
such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
• (2) A copy of the information as recorded under Sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to
the informant.
• (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record
the information referred to in Sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing
and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information
discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an
investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code,
and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that
offence.

Lalita Kumari v. Govt of UP (2013) : Constitution Bench

1. Whether the Police officer is bound to register FIR under S.154, Whether he has a power to conduct a
“preliminary inquiry” in order to test veracity of such information before registering FIR.
• SC held that objective of such placement of provisions was clear which was to ensure that the
recording of the first information should be the starting point of any investigation by the police. In
the interest of expediency of investigation since there was no safeguard of obtaining permission from
the Magistrate to commence an investigation, the said procedure of recording first information in their
books along with the signature/seal of the informant, would act as an "extremely valuable safeguard"
against the excessive, mala fide and illegal exercise of investigative powers by the police.
• The use of the word "shall" in Section 154(1) of the Code clearly shows the legislative intent that it is
mandatory to register an FIR if the information given to the police discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence.
• The non qualification of the word "information" in Section 154(1) unlike in Section 41(1)(a) and (g)
of the Code is for the reason that the police officer should not refuse to record any information
relating to the commission of a cognizable offence on the ground that he is not satisfied with the
reasonableness or credibility of the informations.
• In terms of the language used in Section 154 of the Code, the police is duty bound to proceed to
conduct investigation into a cognizable offence even without receiving information (i.e. FIR) about
commission of such an offence, if the officer in charge of the police station otherwise suspects the
commission of such an offence.
• The object sought to be achieved by registering the earliest information as FIR is inter alia two fold: one,
that the criminal process is set into motion and is well documented from the very start; and second, that
the earliest information received in relation to the commission of a cognizable offence is recorded so
that there cannot be any embellishment etc., later.
• The obligation to register FIR has inherent advantages:
a) It is the first step to 'access to justice' for a victim.
b) It upholds the 'Rule of Law' inasmuch as the ordinary person brings forth the commission of a cognizable
crime in the knowledge of the State.
c) It also facilitates swift investigation and sometimes even prevention of the crime. In both cases, it only
effectuates the regime of law.
d) It leads to less manipulation in criminal cases and lessens incidents of 'ante-dates' FIR or deliberately
delayed FIR.
• Exceptions. :(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made
are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months
delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
2. Youth Bar Association of India vs. UOI (2016)- Justice Dipal Misra & Justice C.Nagappan
(a) An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at an earlier stage than as prescribed
Under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(b) An accused who has reasons to suspect that he has been roped in a criminal case and his name may be
finding place in a First Information Report can submit an application through his
representative/agent/parokar for grant of a certified copy before the concerned police officer or to the
Superintendent of Police on payment of such fee which is payable for obtaining such a copy from the
Court. On such application being made, the copy shall be supplied within twenty-four hours.
d) The copies of the F.I.R.s., unless the offence is sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences
pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act and such other
offences, should be uploaded on the police website.
(e) The decision not to upload the copy of the F.I.R. on the website shall not be taken by an officer below the
rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any person holding equivalent post.

3. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai vs. N.S Gnaneswaran (2013)

• "If case is registered on basis of information received suo-motu makes prima facie cognizable offence
against Accused then non supply of copy of FIR to informant shall not vitiate registration of FIR."
4. State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs. Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan and Ors.
• The legal position is well settled that on information being lodged with the police and if the said
information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the police shall record the same in
accordance with the provisions contained under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Police
Officer's power to investigate in case of a cognizable offence without order of the Magistrate is statutorily
recognised under Section 156 of Code. Thus the police officer in charge of a police station, on the basis of
information received or otherwise, can start investigation if he has reasons to suspect the commission of
any cognizable offence.
• This is subject to the provisos (a) and (b) to Section 157 of the Code which leaves discretion with the
police officer-in-charge of police station to consider if the information is not of a serious nature, he may
depute a subordinate officer to investigate and if it appears to the officer-in- charge that there does not exist
sufficient ground, he shall not investigate.
• Law does not accord any special treatment to any person in respect of any complaint having been
filed against him when it discloses the commission of any cognizable offence.
5. T.T Antony vs. State of Kerala and Ors
• It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more information than one are given to a police
officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one
cognizable offences. In such a case he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and
this is implied in Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure Apart from a vague information by a
phone call or a cryptic telegram the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this
purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the First Information Report--F.I.R. postulated
by Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure. All other information made orally or in writing after the
commencement of the investigation in the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the
First Information Report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other
cognizable cffences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements .
• Thus there can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of
every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or
incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable
offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. in the
station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the
cognizable offence reported in the F.I.R. but also other connected offences found to have been
committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and. file one or more
reports as provided in Section 173 of the CrPC

S.155 Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases-

(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the
limits of such station of a non- cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of
the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may
prescribe in this behalf, and refer, the informant to the Magistrate.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non- cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having
power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
(3)Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation
(except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a
cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be
deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.
Preveen Chandra Mody v. State of MP (1964)
• while investigating a cognizable offence and presenting a charge-sheet for it, the police are not debarred
from investigating any non-cognizable offence arising out of the same facts and including them in the
charge-sheet.
S.156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case. (1) Any officer in charge of a police station
may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having
jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try
under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground
that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
Madhu Bala vs. Suresh Kumar and ORs (1997)
• High Court held that under Section 156 (3) Magistrate can only direct investigation by police but he
has no power to direct registration of case - impugned judgment of High Court set aside - CJM
allowed to proceed with cases in accordance with law - appeal allowed.
• On completion of Investigation undertaken under Section 156(1) the officer in charge of the Police
Station is required under Section 173(2) to forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of
the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government containing all the
particulars mentioned therein.
• it is abundantly clear that when a written complaint disclosing a cognizable offence is made before a
Magistrate, he may lake cognizance upon the same under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code and proceed
with the same in accordance with provisions of Chapter XV. The other option available to the
Magistrate in such a case is to send the complaint to the appropriate Police Station under Section 156(3)
for investigation.
•
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P and Ors ( Justice Mathur & Justice Katju)
• CBI inquiry case
• Section 156 (3)--Power of Magistrate under Section 156 (3)--Magistrate has very wide powers to direct
registration of F.I.R. and investigation--And to ensure proper investigation--For this purpose he can
monitor investigation to ensure that it is done properly--If investigation not being done properly--
Aggrieved person may approach Magistrate under Section 156 (3).
• In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not
registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police
under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory
result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper
investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed
before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be
• Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan and Anr.
• The clear position therefore is that any judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can
order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the
complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of
enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR.
There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering
the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the
officer in charge of the police station as indicated in Section 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate does not
say in so many words while directing investigating under Section 156(3) of the Code that an FIR should be
registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the
cognizable offence disclosed by the complaint because that police officer could take further steps
contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter.
• Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi.
• if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually making
the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approach the
Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper
investigation and take other suitable steps and pass such order orders as he thinks necessary for ensuring a
proper investigation. All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
• In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are
necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R.
and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been
done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is
very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper
investigation.
S.157. Procedure for investigation:
(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to
suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, he shall
forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence
upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not
being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this
behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to
take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender:
Provided that-
(a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the
case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a
subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot;
(b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an
investigation, he shall not investigate the case.
Provided further that in relation to an offence of rape, the recording of statement of the victim shall be
conducted at the residence of the victim or in the place of her choice and as far as practicable by a woman
police officer in the presence of her parents or guardian or near relatives or social worker of the locality.
(2) In each of the cases mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Sub-section (1), the officer in
charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements
of that subsection, and, in the case mentioned in Clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also
forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the
fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated.

Arrest

- The word Arrest & custody has been nowhere defined in the CrPC
- In Natural sense , arrest means the restraint on or deprivation of one’s personal liberty. In its legal sense,
arrest means apprehension of a person by legal authority resulting in deprivation of personal liberty of an
individual.
- In Halsbury’s Laws of England : “Arrest consists in the seizure or touching of a person’s body with a view
to his restraint; words may ,however, amount to an arrest in the circumstances of the case ,they are
calculated to bring =, and do bring , a person’s notice that he is under compulsion and he thereafter
submits to the compulsion” The definition is somewhat to similar S.46 of CrPC

BY WHOM
- Arrest by Police officer (S.41 & S.42) :
- S.41 provide nine classes of persons who may be arrested by the police without warrant
- S.42 provide for arrest of person if he refuses to disclose his identity and if he is suspected to be one of the
offenders. But such a person must be released on bail after securing a bond if he is suspected to having
committed a non-cognizable offence.
- In case, non resident of India, S.42 makes it obligatory for sureties resident in India.
- Arrest by Private Persons (S.43)
- Only when :
I. The person is a proclaimed offender
II. The person commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence in his presence
Extraordinary- so construed strictly -Moreover without any delay person, must make over such person to a
police officer or take him to the nearest police station.
-Arrest by Magistrate (S.44)
(1) gives power to arrest a person who has committed an offence in his presence and also to keep him to
custody.
(2) Magistrate has a power to arrest a person who is suspected of having committed an offence but he has no
power to keep him to custody in this case.
- Protection of members of the Armed Forces from Arrest (S.45)
- Consent of the Central Government

HOW

- S.46 : “ (1) In making an arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall actually touch or
confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody by word or
action.

Provided that where a woman is to be arrested, unless the circumstances indicate to the contrary, her
submission to custody on an oral intimation of arrest shall be presumed and ,unless the circumstances
otherwise require or unless the police officer is a female, the police officer shall not touch the person of the
woman for making her arrest.

(2) If such a person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, such police
officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest.

(3) Nothing in this Section gives a right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an offence
punishable with death or with imprisonment for life.

(4) Save in exceptional circumstances, no woman shall be arrested after sunset and before sunrise, and
where such exceptional circumstances exist the women police officer shall, by making a written report,
obtain the prior permission of the Judicial Magistrate First class within whose local jurisdiction the offence
is committed or the arrest is to be made.”

• Concept of Arrest & Custody : State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar (2008) 3 SCC 2002
- Ratio : Custody, in the concept of Section 439 is physical control or at least physical presence of the
accused in court coupled with submission to the jurisdiction and order of the Court.
- Facts : Two Appeals from 2 coordinate Benches of the Same High court : Issue : what constitutes arrest
and custody in relation to criminal procedure.
- Two queries on appointment of Constable-Drivers -Haryana Police Q1. Have you ever been arrested . (2)
Have you ever been convicted.
- SC, Justice Altamas Kabir : When seen in legal sense connected to procedure of criminal offences, an
arrest consists in the taking into custody of another person under authority empowered by law, for the
purpose of holding or detailing him to answer a criminal charge or of preventing the commission of
criminal offence.
- Court also evaluated the Full bench judgement of the Madras High Court in Roshan Beevi v. Govt of TN
(1984) and observed that the custody and arrest are not synonymous terms and observed that it is true that
in every arrest there is a custody but not vice-versa. A custody may amount to arrest in certain cases, but
not in all cases. Thus it disapproved the applicability of Madras high Court judgement in this case.
- The SC reiterated the decision in Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar (1980) judgement wherein the concept of
arrest and custody has been correctly stated. The issue was : when is aperson in custody, within the
meaning of S.439 CrPC ? The SC in that case observed that when he I, in duress either because he is held
by the investigating agency or other police or allied authority or he is under the control of the court having
been remanded by judicial order, or having offered himself to the court’s jurisdiction and submitted to its
orders by physical presence.
- The concept was expanded in State of UP v. Deomen (1960) wherein it was inter alia observed “ S.46
SrPC, does not contemplate any formality before a person can be said to be takin custody. Submission to
the custody by words of mouth or action by a person is sufficient. “
- However in this case the court gave benefit of mistaken impression to the persons.

Procedure of Arrest

- S.41 :When a police may arrest without warrant :

(a) who commits, in presence of police officer , cognizable offence
(b) Reasonable complaint, information received, reasonable suspicion committed cognizable punishable
with imprisionment less than 7 yrs or may extend to 7 yrs :with conditions satisfied (i) police officer
reason to believe complaint , (ii) police officer satisfied : to prevent further offence, for proper
investigation, prevent disaapereanc elf evidence, prevent threat or inducement
(c) Many more
Priviso : police officer shall, in all cases , where arrest of person is not required under the provisions of this
sub-section shall record reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

(2) Subject to the provisions of S.42, no person concerned in non-cognizable offence or against whom
complaint has been made or credible info has been received or reasonable suspicion exists , shall be arrested
except under a warrant or order of Magistrate.

-S.41 A : Notice of appearance before Police officer

- Where arrest not require as per S.41 (1) but complaint received shall issue notice
- He shall than comply
- Siddharam v. State of Maharashtra (2011) : SC, made following suggestions which may be helpful before
an accused is arrested :
(1) Direct the accused to joint the investigation and only when the accused does not cooperate with the
investigating agency, then only the accused be arrested.
(2) Sieze either the passport or such other related documents ,such as title of deeds of properties or the fixed
deposits receipts/share certificates of the accused.
(3) Direct the accused to execute bonds
(4) Accused may be directed to furnish sureties which may be accessory as per facts of the case
(5) Bank accounts be frozen for small duration of investigation

S.41 B : Procedure of arrest and duties of officer making arrest :

(a) bear his identification number
(b) Prepare memorandum of arrest : attested by at least one witness; countersigned by the person arrested
(c) Inform the person arrested, unless memo is attested about his right to have a friend or family named by
him to be informed.

S.41C :Control Rooms at every District : Display on board who arrested &maintain database for general
public.
S.41 D : Right of the person arrested to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation
S.53 : Examination of the accused :
-Anil Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra , examination of the accused not confined to eternal examination
of his body but many times it is necessary to make examination of organs inside the body for the purpose of
collective evidence . This includes blood, sputum,semen,urine etc even potency test.
S.54 : Idenitification of person arrested

-D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal :to check the abuse of power , SC laid down certain basic “requirements”
to be followed in case of arrest or detention.
-Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) (Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad) - SC
- Facts :Matrimonial dispute -dowry case
- Legal Issues :
(1) Can arrest be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of a non-bailable and
cognizable offence made against a person ?
- Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also a failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only
this, the power of arrest is one of th lucrative sources of police corruption.
- It would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction
reached after some investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation. Despite this legal position, the
legislature did not find any improvement.

(2) Can a police officer arbitrarily arrest a person without being satisfied that the arrest is necessary for one
or the more purposes envisaged by Sub clauses (a) to (e) of S.41 CrPC ?

- An accused cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had
committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. He has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary
to prevent such person from committing any further offence etc other conditions

(3) What is the mandate of S.41 CrPC to avoid unnecessary arrest ?

-Notice clause

Decision : Pertaining to powers of S.41 - the practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or
most of the reasons contained in S.41 for defecting arrest be discouraged and discontinued.

Directions :
1. All state Govts shall instruct police officers to satisfy parameters laid under S.41
2. All police officers shall be provided a check list of sub-clauses
3. They shall forward this check list to the magistrate and reasons
4. Magistrate shall peruse the report and only if satisfied shall order further detention
5. The decision not to arrest a accuse shall be forwarded to the Magistrate in 2 weeks of the institution of
the case.
6. Notice of appearance under S.41 be issued within two weeks from the date of institution of the case
7. Failure to comply - contempt of court
8. Authorising arrest without recording reasons - departmental enquiry

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

(1) Right of Arrested Person to Meet an Advocate of his choice during interrogation (S.41D)
(2) No unnecessary Restraint (S.49)
(3) Right to know the grounds of Arrest (Art 22(1), S.50(1), S.55 , S.75 )
(4) Information regarding the right to be released on bail
(5) Obligation of Person making arrest to inform about the arrest, etc to a nominated person : S.50A
(6) Right to be examined by a Medical Practitioner (S.54)
(7) Right to be taken before a Magistrate without delay (S.56 & S.76)
(8) Person arrested not to be detained more than 24 hours : Art 22(1), S.57 , S.167

Search (Chapter VII - Process to compel the production of Things) - Imp because in a way intrusion in
privacy and personal liberty

1. S.91 : Summons to produce a other thing

2. S.98 : When search warrant may be issued
3. S.165 : Search by a police officer
4. S.100 : Procedure to search
5. S.102 :Power of police officer to seize certain property
S.91 - Whenever the court of p.o considers that the production of any document or thing necessary or
desirable for the purpose investigation ,inquiry, trial or other proceedings —- may issue summons

S.93 - Where any Court has a reason to believe that a person to whom summons or order under S.91
would not produce the document or thing
Other grounds : (b) where such document or thing is not known to the Court in possession of any person
(c) where the Court purposes of inquiry, trial or other proceeding would be served by a general search or
investigation
Rest. :Court may be specific in its orders
(S.97- Search fo persons wrongfully confined )
(S.98 - Power to compel restoration of abducted females)

S.165 - Whenever an officer incharge of a police officer or one making investigation has a reasonable
grounds of believing that anything necessary for the purposes of an investigation —jiki vo investigation Kar
raha hai - , such offer may, after recording in writing the grounds of his belief and specifying in such writing
,so far as possible, the thing for which the search is to be made.. . in territorial limits

• S ofMP through CBI v. Paltan Mallah (2005) - alleged illegality of search by IO does not vitiate seizure
unless it has caused prejudice to accused — Settled position the Court in India has discretion w.r.t
admissibality of evidence in this regard.
• Sanchita investment case : Ponzi scheme - police raid ; Search was questioned & S.165 was
challenged : Court asked to return the documents & observed CTO’s letter of suspicion was not enough
should have done prelim inquiry before starting the investigation.
• However position is different in case of NDPS Act & Official Secret’s Act cases - there swiftness is
required.

S.100 - All searches must adhere to this

- Identify themselves - police
- Police themselves must first let themselves be searched
- Cooperate & assist police in search
- Breaking the door allowed as per S.47(2)
- Must get 2 independent & respectable persons from the locality (independent may be waived- respectable
is imp)
- Have access to every corner of the house
- Must take all documents in front of members of the house

S.102 : Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been
stolen or which. May be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any
offence.
Junior report to senior , police officer to Magistrate; forthwith
Subject to circumstances :daylight, school children must be allowed to go the school, no undue harassment ,
telephone lines be carefully handled.

Examination of Witness by the Police

1. S160 : Police Officer’s power to require attendance of witness

2. S161 : Examination of witness by Police
3. S162 : Statements to Police not to be signed and use of such Statements as Evidence
4. S163 : No Inducement by the Police
S.160 : any p.o investigations may require the attendance before him, appears to be acquainted with the facts
and circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required.: Cannot be made requiring
attendance of an accused .
Proviso : 15 yr clause, payment for the expense.

S.161 :
(1) may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
: includes actual accused & suspect . S.161 read in conjunction with S.162.
(2) Such person be bound to answer truly all questions other than questions the answers to which would have
a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge.
(3) Officer may reduce it to a writing

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L Dani & Others : legal question regarding operation of A.20(3) and scope of
S.161(2).
Justice Krishna Iyer: S.161(2) parliamentary gloss over constitutional clause. The accused person cannot be
forced to answer questions ,he has right to keep his mouth shut if the answer sought has a reasonable
prospect of exposing him to guilt in some way or other.

However, the legal perils following upon refusal to answer , or answer truthfully cannot be regarded as
compulsion within the meaning of A.20(3).

S.162 :Statement to police is not a substantive evidence ,its neither given on oath nor is it tested by cross-
examination.

Paramjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand : The court made observations regard

• Standard of proof
• Circumstantial evidence
• Hostile witness
Dismissed the appeal

Confession
S. 164 (1) Magistrate, a may, irecord, any statement or confession made to him in the course of an
investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force or at any time afterwards
before the commencement of the inquiry or trial.
Such confessions shall be recorded and signed in the manner provided in section 364, and such statements
before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a
confession and that if he does so it may be used as evidence against him
Refer Notes

Form an opinion by Police

It’s concluding part of the investigation —-> Report
• S.157 : Report to Magistrate
• S.168 : investigation report
Conclusion if Yes then —> can be challenged in front of mag & leave scope for him
S.167 : Procedure when procedure is not completed within 24 hours
• Default bail
• But if there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the Magistrate
may put him in remand :
(i) police custody- 15 days
(ii) Judicial custody- 90 days (if chargesheet not filed) ; 60 days (related to some other offences) ; or can
take place till the trial is over.
(iii) Bound duty of police to produce
(iv) Right accrued if not submitted chargesheet but if there then no such right is there .

S. 173 : Report of Police Officer on Completion of Investigation

(a) (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. The
investigation in relation to rape of a child may be completed within three months from the date on which
the information was recorded.
(b) Police report with necessary details
(c) Charge sheet when complete (final report)
(d) Further investigation after cognisance : supplementary report
(e) Court’s power to direct further investigation : he may direct for further investigation under S.156(3) but
cannot order further investigation after taking cognisance of the offence on Police report and
appearance of the accused in pursuance of the process issued.
(f) Court’s power to deal with case after submission of police report : he may differ from the police. The SC
has held that in a case if he decides not to take cognisance of the offence and to drop the proceedings or
takes the view that there is no sufficient ground the other party must be heard .
Ramnarayan Case

Cognizance by the Magistrate

Only when requisite for initiation of proceedings before it.

S.190 : Cognizance of Offence by Magistrate : on any offence;
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
(b) Upon a police report of such facts;
(c) Upon information received from any person other than a police officer, offence has been committed

May take cognisance : SDM Delhi v. Ram Kali - must take

But what is taking cognisance ? Applying mind for the purpose of proceedings under S.200, then he can be
said to have taken cognisance under S.190 (1) but if he has, in judicial exercise of his discretion, taken action
of some other kind, such as issuing a search warrant or ordering an investigation Unser S.156(3) that cannot
be held to be taken cognisance.

Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttrakhand (2008) : cognisance is with regard to the offence and not the
offender ; he is satisfied that, if proved would constitute an offence and thus initiate the proceedings.
Anil Sran v. State of Bihar : taking cognisance is “sina qua non” for trial.
Dr.Nupur Talwar v. CBI Delhi (2012) : SC observed that where the Magistrate takes cognisance by
rejecting the report of investigating agency and the order is well-reasoned and shows due application of mind
,superior court would refuse to interfere. Order taking cognisance can be interfered with only if it is perverse
or based on no material , but even superior courts must exercise restraints while considering an order taking
cognisance.
H.S Bains v. State (UT of Chandigarh) : police submitted report under Section 173 of Code of 1973 stating
that no case had been made out against accused and case might be dropped - Magistrate disagreed with
police and took cognizance of case directing issue of process to accused - accused alleged Magistrate not
competent to take cognizance of case as police report stated that accused did not commit the offence -
Magistrate not bound by conclusions of complaint - held, Magistrate acted within jurisdiction in taking
cognizance of offence and issuing process to accused notwithstanding that police report stated that no case
had been made out.
Abhinandan Jha and Ors. vs. Dinesh Mishra : Criminal - power of Magistrate - Sections 156 (3) and 173
of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 - petitioners filed petition without success in front of Sessions Judge and
High Court against Magistrate's Order directing police to submit charge sheet even when final report under
Section 173 (1) has been filed - Supreme Court observed that magistrate didn't have power to call upon
police to submit charge sheet after final report under Section 173 (1) has been filed - at most he can ask
police to carry out further investigation under Section 156 (3) if not satisfied by final report - Order of
Magistrate directing police to file charge set aside.
Rakesh vs. State of U.P. (13.08.2014 - SC) Ranjan Gogoi Complaint case - Continuation of matter -
Maintainability of - Present appeal filed against order whereby Magistrate accepted final report but
simultaneously directed that case registered against Appellant be proceeded with as complaint case and said
order was affirmed by High court - Whether Magistrate after accepting negative final report submitted by
Police could take action on basis of protest petition filed by complainant/first informant - Held, Appellant
was not justified in contending that after accepted final report Magistrate had become "functus officio" and
was denuded of all power to proceed in matter - High court was justified in affirming order of Magistrate
whereby Magistrate accepted final report and simultaneously directed that case registered against Appellant
be proceeded with as complaint case - Appeal dismissed.
Limitation : incase of private complaint : and court is aware that police is investigating it should give way to
police S.210

BAIL

Bail is contemplated to procure the release of a person from legal custody, by undertaking that he shall
appear at the time and place designated and submit himself to the jurisdiction and judgement of the court.
The basic rule is to release the person on bail unless there are circumstances suggesting the possibility of his
fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice.
J Krishna Iyer in G. Narsimhulu v Public Prosecutor : “the issue of bail os one of the liberty, justice,
justice, public safety and burden on public treasury” - personal liberty

S.436 : In what cases the Bail can be granted :

• The person has been accused of a bailable offence
• Arrested or detained without warrant
• He must be prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer or at any stage of the proceeding
before court to give bail
If above 3 conditions met : he “shall” be given bail and not “may”
-amount of bail with surety should be reasonable
-release of indigent person on personal bond - no purity read, officer can release on own purity
Right to bail is not absolute , court may out restrictions as per S.436 and if person already broken bail bond
then he may not entitled to such a right.

Rasiklal vs. Kisore (20.02.2009 - SC)

It is well-settled that bail granted to an accused with reference to bailable offence can be cancelled only if the
accused (1) misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (2) interferes with the course of
investigation, (3) attempts to tamper with evidence of witnesses, (4) threatens witnesses or indulges in
similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (5) attempts to flee to another country, (6)
attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency,
(7) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not
exhaustive. However, a bail granted to a person accused of bailable offence cannot be cancelled on the
ground that the complainant was not heard.

S.436A : Undertrials : release of the accused on bail on his own purity if he has served half of the maximum
term prescribed for that offence.

S.437 : When bail may be taken, in case of non-bailable offence

Diff b/w 436 & 437 :

• Former granted as a matter of course of the person is willing to furnish bail, latter it can’t be claimed as a
matter of right and would depend upon the facts of the case.
• Unlike 436 here the court may impose restrictions
S.437 (1) :Pre-requisites
• It expressly excludes High Court and the Court of Session; power of Magistrate
• Accused 3 categories :
(i) guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life; (ii) habitual offenders
(iii) Other Non-bailable cases : judicial discretion exercised- w.r.t conditions necessary
S.437(2) : if the court believes at any stage of investigation, inquiry or trial no reasonable ground for
believing the accused has committed a non-bailable offence , but sufficient grounds for further inquiry into
his guilt, bail can be granted
(3) : conditions may be imposed while granting bail
(4) :recording reasons while exercising discretion

S.438 : Anticipatory Bail : Discretion for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest : An insurance
upon police custody upon arrest
(1) non-bailable offence - High Court or Court of Sessions , Court may on considering
(2) The nature and gravity of the accusation
(3) Antecedents of the applicant
(4) possibilit yto flee
(5) Accusation may be made with object to injuring or humiliating
Gurbax Singh v State of Punjab (Corruption case )- J Chandrachud
• Conditions : may
• Is it unguided power : that’s why given to higher courts
• Extraordinary situations only ? Nothing of this sort said in the law

Savitri Agarwal and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Cancellation thereof - Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Sections 498A, 304B Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 - Respondent accused Appellants of causing dowry death of their daughter - Sessions Judge confirmed
anticipatory bail granted to Appellants on considering dying declarations of deceased and statements of
complainants - On appeal, High Court cancelled anticipatory bail granted to Appellants holding that Sessions
Judge failed to apply his mind to factual circumstances - Hence, present appeal by Appellants challenging
High Court's finding - Held, order passed by Sessions Judge was supported by reasons to the extent required
for exercise of judicial discretion in matter of grant of bail - Sessions Judge passed order after due
consideration of facts and circumstances of case, in particular, two dying declarations - Very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for Order directing cancellation of bail already granted, which
were missing in instant case - High Court committed serious error in reversing Order passed by Additional
Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to Appellants - Appeal allowed

Ratio Decidendi:
"Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail
already granted."

Law Commission ‘Amendments to CrPC-Provisons relating to Bail’

1. When a person is arrested without a warrant, he would be informed by the arresting officer that he is
entitled to free legal aid and may move an application for bail, orally as well as in writing (as far as
possible), in the language he understands.
2. In s. 436A of Cr.P.C. where the under trial accused is involved in an offence the imprisonment up to
seven years, he should be released on bail on spending one-third period of the maximum punishment
prescribed for that offence. For other offences carrying higher punishment, he may be released on
bail after serving half of the maximum punishment prescribed for that offence. While the existing
provision provide for serving of half of the sentence so prescribed in all cases, including minor
offences. To ensure effective compliance of s. 436A of Cr.P.C. it is recommended that the Secretary
to the District Legal Services Authority (a judicial officer) be a Nodal Officer.
3. In order to give effect to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court, it has been suggested that the
bail application may normally be decided by the subordinate court within one week and the High
Courts shall frame rules accordingly.
 4. Section 437A of Cr.P.C was inserted in 2009, in view of the recommendations of the Law
Commission made in 1996. This was done to give effect to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court
in Harish Laxman Solanki of 1994. The said judgment was over ruled by the Full Bench of the
Gujarat High Court in Omprakash Tekchand Batra vide judgment dated 14.08.1998. The Full Bench
had held that imposing such conditions in exercise of s. 482 Cr.P.C. was unconstitutional, illegal and
void ab initio. The provision s.437A, was inserted without taking note of the Full Bench Judgment.
The Allahabad High Court in Nannu’s case dated 13.02.2012, has made suggestions for taking only
personal bond of the person acquitted of all the charges, giving undertaking to appear before the
higher Court, if so required. The Commission recommends the substitution of the said provision by
providing that after acquittal of all charges leveled against a person, his personal bond be taken
which will serve the purpose. Imposing any other condition may be violative of his constitutional
and legal rights.
5. In s. 438 of Cr.P.C. after examining large number of cases, it is recommended that anticipatory bail
must be for a period prescribed by the Court granting such bail or till the charge-sheet is filed,
whichever is earlier.
6. In case where the accused is granted bail and is not able to furnish sureties within a period of thirty
days and moves an application for varying the bail conditions, the court would hear the application
and pass an appropriate order. It is further recommended that the Court should not insist for giving
local surety. Outside surety, may be accepted after verification of his antecedents and veracity of
declaration so made through the investigating officer.
7. In a case of default bail, if the accused is not able to furnish surety within seven days, the Court, on
his application may vary the conditions of bail.
8. The actual period available for investigation has to be taken into consideration excluding the period
of hospitalization etc.
9. It has also been suggested that the Court may not have a liberal approach in grant of bail in economic
offences.

Speedy Trial (Hussain and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI)

Whether Appellants were entitled to bail as speedy trial was their fundamental right

Facts:

Grievance in the present appeals was against denial of bail pending trial/appeal where Appellants were in
custody for a long period. The Appellants were in the custody since 4th August, 2013 on the allegation of
having committed offence Under Section 21(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (the NDPS Act). Their bail application was dismissed. In the second case, the Appellant was in custody
since 11th January, 2009. He was convicted by the trial court Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
His bail application was dismissed by the High Court pending appeal. The Appellants contend that, having
regard to the long period of custody, they were entitled to bail as speedy trial was their fundamental right
Under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Held:

(i) In Abdul Rehman Antulay and Ors. v. R.S. Nayak and Anr. while holding that speedy trial at all stages is
part of right Under Article 21, it was held that if there is violation of right of speedy trial, instead of quashing
the proceedings, a higher court can direct conclusion of proceedings in a fixed time. The present appeals
disposed of by directing that the pending trial in the first case and the appeal in the second case might be
disposed of within six months. [7]

(ii) Speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure guaranteed Under Article 21. This
constitutional right cannot be denied even on the plea of non-availability of financial resources. The court is
entitled to issue directions to augment and strengthen investigating machinery, setting-up of new courts,
building new court houses, providing more staff and equipment to the courts, appointment of additional
judges and other measures as are necessary for speedy trial. [9]
(iii) Delay in disposal of bail applications and cases where trials are stayed are priority areas for monitoring.
Timeline for disposal of bail applications ought to be fixed by the High Court. As far as possible, bail
applications in subordinate courts should ordinarily be decided within one week and in High Courts within
two-three weeks. Posting of suitable officers in key leadership positions of Session Judges and Chief Judicial
Magistrates may perhaps go a long way in dealing with the situation. Non performers/dead wood must be
weeded out as per rules, as public interest is above individual interest. [20]

(iv) It is necessary to direct that steps be taken forthwith by all concerned to effectuate the mandate of the
fundamental right Under Article 21 especially with regard to persons in custody in view of the directions
already issued by this Court. It is desirable that each High Court frames its annual action plan fixing a
tentative time limit for subordinate courts for deciding criminal trials of persons in custody and other long
pending cases and monitors implementation of such timelines periodically. This may perhaps obviate the
need for seeking directions in individual cases from the present Court. [24]

(v) The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts that bail applications be disposed of normally
within one week; Magisterial trials, where Accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months
and sessions trials where Accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years; Efforts be made to
dispose of all cases which are five years old by the end of the year; As a supplement to Section 436A, but
consistent with the spirit thereof, if an undertrial has completed period of custody in excess of the sentence
likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such undertrial must be released on personal bond. Such an
assessment must be made by the concerned trial courts from time to time; The above timelines may be the
touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports. The High Courts are
requested to ensure that bail applications filed before them are decided as far as possible within one month
and criminal appeals where Accused are in custody for more than five years are concluded at the earliest.
The High Courts may prepare, issue and monitor appropriate action plans for the subordinate courts; The
High Courts may monitor steps for speedy investigation and trials on administrative and judicial side from
time to time; The High Courts may take such stringent measures as may be found necessary in the light of
judgment of this Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India. [27]

(vi) The Chief Justices of all High Courts were requested to forthwith take appropriate steps consistent with
the directions of the present Court in Hussain Ara Khatoon, Akhtari Bi (Smt.), Noor Mohammed, Thana
Singh, S.C. Legal Aid Committee, Imtiaz Ahmad, Ex. Captain Harish Uppal and Resolution of Chief
Justices' Conference and observations and to have appropriate monitoring mechanism in place on the
administrative side as well as on the judicial side for speeding up disposal of cases of undertrials pending in
subordinate courts and appeals pending in the High Courts

Charge
The objective of charge as explained in V.C Shukla v. CBI is to serve the purpose of notice or intimation to
the accused, going clear and unambiguous or precise notice of th enature of accusation that the accused is
called upon to meet the course of trial .
Ramakrishnna v . S of Maha : judge reads the ingredients of the offence o the accused. Police carries out
investigation under S.173 and then files in court, the charge-sheet. The Court then decides which charge will
remain and which will be dropped.

Chapter XVII (211-224) — “Framing of Charge”

S.211 : (Contents of Charge) : 211(7) - share should state the offence accused is charged with. If more than
one accused separate charges shall be framed.

Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (21.04.2009 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0640/2009
Criminal - Murder - Requirement of specification of Charge - Effect of omission to frame charge - Section
149 and 302 of Indian Penal Code - Appellants were convicted by the Trial and the High Court for the
offence of double murder as a result of village political rivalry - Hence, the present appeal - Appellants
denying their role in the crime contended that the FIR was a concocted document and there is no specific
overt act attributed to each of the accused - No charge or finding for the offence as per Section 149 -
Whether omission to frame a specific charge warrants setting aside of conviction - Held, Section 464
specifies that a finding or sentence of a Court shall not be set aside merely on the ground that a charge was
not framed or that charge was defective unless it has occasioned in prejudice - Charge No. 4 and charge No.
5 leaves no manner of doubt, since the transaction mentioned in charge No. 1 has been made integral part
thereof - All the necessary ingredients of Section 149 IPC are implicit therein except mentioning of Section
149 IPC specifically - Particulars stated in charge No. 4 and 5 are reasonably sufficient to give the
Appellants adequate notice of Section 149 IPC although not specifically mentioned - Non-framing of a
charge under Section 149 IPC, on the face of the charges framed against the appellants would not vitiate their
conviction as the accused have failed to show any prejudice in this regard - It may be considered as an
irregularity - Cannot not be a ground for setting aside the conviction and sentence -Appeal dismissed

Ratio Decidendi:
"If all the necessary ingredients of a particular Section are implicit omission to frame a specific charge will
not vitiate their conviction unless accused has showed any prejudice."

Mohan Singh vs. State of Bihar (26.08.2011 - SC)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 211 (2)--Indian Penal Code, 1860--Sections 120B and 387--
Conspiracy for murder--And extortion of money--One person killed and his father seriously injured by
gunshots--Conviction and sentence--Non-framing of charge under Section 302--But no prejudice or failure
of justice caused thereby--In charge clearly mentioned that appellant committed murder of deceased--All
ingredients of charge mentioned--Requirement of Section 211 (2), Cr. P.C. complied with--Identification of
accused-appellant--Well established from evidence on record--No reason to take different view--No ground
to interfere.

No prejudice has been caused to the appellant for non-mentioning of Section 302, I.P.C. in the charge since
all the ingredients of the offence were disclosed. The appellant had full notice and had ample opportunity to
defend himself against the same and at no earlier stage of the proceedings, the appellant had raised any
grievance. Apart from that, on overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not
found that the appellant suffered any prejudice nor has there been any failure of justice.

In the instant case, in the charge it has been clearly mentioned that the accused-appellant has committed the
murder of Anil Jha. By mentioning that the accused has committed the murder of Anil Jha, all the ingredients
of the charge have been mentioned and the requirement of Section 211, sub-section(2) has been complied
with.

P.W. 4 in his evidence clearly stated that the appellant gave him a phone call asking for money on 23.7.2005
and again on 25.7.2005 when the appellant threatened him of dire consequences for not paying the money.
P.W. 4 also stated in his evidence that he got an I.D. caller installed in his phone and he informed the police
of the phone number of the caller which is of the appellant. P.W. 4 also stated In his evidence that he had
direct talks with the appellant at hospital chawk prior to the incident when he used to demand money from
him and other shopkeepers at the time of Durga Puja and Saraswati Puja. P.W. 4 specifically stated that he
can identify the voice of Mohan Singh. The first Investigating Officer of the case (P.W. 6) in his evidence
also stated that during investigation mobile No. 9835273765 of Mohan Singh was found and mobile No.
9431428630 of Laxmi Singh was also found. P.W. 8. the other Investigating Officer of the case stated that on
23.7.2005. four calls were made between the mobile phones of Laxmi Singh and Mohan Singh. Then six
more calls were made by Laxmi Singh to Mohan Singh on 3.8.2005. i.e., on the day of the incident itself.
The printout details of these phone calls were produced before the Court. So both the trial court and High
Court considered the evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 who were the Investigating Officers in this case, apart
from the evidence of P.W. 4, other witnesses and the materials on record before coming to the conclusion.
The fact that the name of registered allottees the SIM cards of these mobile phones could not be traced is not
relevant in this connection.

Jasvinder Saini and Ors.

Vs.
Respondent: State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (J.Thakur ) - S.216 mechanical application
JOINDER OF CHARGES (S.218-224)

S.218 (Fundamental rule of charge framing) :every accused is to be charged seperately for distinct offences .
However proviso :if accused makes an application asking joinder of charges and Mag feels it will be no
prejudice he can allow supplication. — why ? Distrinct charges are for bereft of accused if he does not want
he can waive it.

Exceptions
S.219 (Three offences of same kind within same year may be charged together)
S.220 (offences committed in the course of same transaction)
S220(2) (if charged with one or more offences criminal breach of trust r dishonest misappropriation of
property or accused of facilitating or concealing such an offence)
S.220(3) , (4)
S.221(Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed)
S.222
S.223
S.224
Kantilal Chandulal Mehta vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Criminal - retrial of case - Section 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 342, 406 and 423 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 - appellant required to send shipping document to respondent - on failure he
was convicted by Magistrate under Section 406 - appeal filed in High Court for amending charges imposed
against him - respondent contended that some additional charges must be imposed upon him - High Court
allowed that appeal and rendered case for retrial - against decision appeal filed in Supreme Court - Supreme
Court observed that Court has ample power to alter and amend the charges framed - direction of High Court
was in conformity with provisions of Criminal Procedure Code - appeal dismissed and decision of High
Court affirmed - held, by ordering amendment in charges no prejudice caused to appellant.

Sabbi Mallesu v. S of Andhra Pradesh (15 ppl case)

They were charged under various Sections, namely, Sections 147, 148, 302, 324, 323, 341, 120B and 506(2)
of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, however, without altering the charge proceeded to
convict the six accused persons under Sections 302/149 I.P.C

Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (24.09.1998 - SC)

Criminal - Conviction - Validity of - Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 5 of the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act - Appeal filed against order of conviction under accused Section 25 of
Act and Section 5 of Act - Held, it was submitted that offences punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act and
Section 5 of TADA Act could have been tried along with offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of
IPC and Section 3 of TADA Act and in support of his submission he relied upon Section 220 of Cr.P.C -
What is overlooked is that it is an enabling provision which permits the court to try more than one offence in
one trial - Court may or may not try all the offences together in one trial - It cannot be said that by trying
separately the Designated Court committed any illegality - Armourer were examined and identified in Court
- There was no reason for police to falsely involve the appellant - Moreover, Designated Court has pointed
out that no complaint was made to the police authorities by the Panchayat regarding alleged unlawful
detention of appellant - Designated Court was justified in not accepting the defence raised by the appellant -
No substance found in any of the contentions raised in this appeal, hence dismissed

Ram Prashad and Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1996)

Criminal - Quashing of additional charge framed - Charges framed under Sections 376, 323 and 342 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Additional charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act) also framed - Revision petition filed for
quashing of additional charge framed by trial Court - Held, mere fact that the F.I.R. was lodged, claiming the
prosecutrix to be a member of Scheduled Caste was not a sufficient material to presume that the charge
under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act was called for - If the trial Court felt that the additional charge was
necessary, then an enquiry was imperative for holding the prosecutrix to have become a member of
Scheduled Caste at the time of incident - Without such a finding no additional charge could be framed -
Impugned order and the additional charge framed under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act quashed - Revision
petition allowed.