Ready Reference On CR.P.C by - Narendra KR - Roy .

Ready Reference on
Cr.P.C
By :- Narendra kr. Roy.
Prosecution Officer
Bihar.
-------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
During the lockdown, due to corona virus on 26-03-2020 it came in my
mind to utilise the period of lockdown in a positive manner. I had
collection of rulings on Cr. P. C along with other subjects since
1994,which was written in copies in scattered manner. I simply decided
to arrange the collection of Cr. P. C according to Section , to give the
same, a form of book. This book contains references of various
decisions particularly those which I searched and found useful for the
Advocates, Prosecutors and Courts. It contains the solution of problems
which comes during practice /during performing duty as an Advocate,
Prosecutor or Court. I have tried to focus on the problems which comes
during trial of a case and tried to touch those problems particularly which
comes frequently. It do not contains the contents of the section. So bare
act of Cr. P. C is required while going through this book. It only contains
the head lines of the sections.
Narendra kr. Roy.
SDPO/Addl.P.P
Prosecution Service
Bihar.
----------_-------------------------
Collection on
Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

Law College Notes & Stuffs
Exclusive group for Law Students
Join Us Here for More Materials

Law College Notes & Stuffs

Cr. P. C.
DPO/Addl.P.P
By: Narendra kr. Roy. S
Bihar Prosecution Service.
___________________
The code of criminal procedure ,1973

Chapter 1
Preliminary
(1)Short title, extent and commencement -( 1) This act may be
called the code of criminal procedure, 1973.
_________________
Author's blog
1.In Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir penal code or RPC was the main
criminal code applicable in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir . Now
it has been removed as the Parliament of India has passed the bill to
scrap provisions of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution on 5th August
2019. No Criminal Procedure Code 1973 is applicable in Jammu and
Kashmir also.
2.The code of criminal procedure is an adjective or procedural law which

provides a machinery for the punishment of offenders against
substantive criminal laws.
3.All criminal proceeding is guided by Criminal Procedure Code and it is

followed by the filing of FIR, investigation, submission of charge sheet
,provisions of bail and bonds, cognizance, framing of charge, procedure
of trial, production of witnesses, statement of the accused, argument and
finally judgement, all these are done as per the provision of the Criminal
Procedure Code. But how the evidence will be brought on record is
guided by the evidence act. And how much will be the punishment is
guided by substantive law like IPC and other criminal laws.
-------------------------------------

(4 ) 1- Interpretation of statutes - principles - as a first step, the Courts
ought to interpret the text of the provision and construct it literally -
provisions in a statute must be read in their original grammatical
meaning to give its words a common textual meaning - however, this tool
of interpretation can only be applied in cases where the text of the
enactment is susceptible to only one meaning - in a situation where
there is ambiguity in the meaning of the text, the courts must also give
due regard to the consequences of the interpretation taken - it is the
responsibility of the courts to interpret the text in a manner which
eliminates any element of hardship, inconvenience, injustice, absurdity
or anomaly - a legislation must further its objectives and not create any
confusion or friction in the system - if the ordinary meaning of the text of
such law is non- conductive for the objects sought to be achieved, it
must be interpreted accordingly to remedy such deficiency.
2020 (1 ) PLJR (S C) 237
DR. MAJOR MEETA SAHAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Civil Appeal number 9482 off 2019.
2. Definitions -
2 ( c) "Cognizable Offence".–
(1 ) 2 (c)- Schedule I (as amended by Criminal Procedure Code. Andhra
Pradesh II Amendment )Act (1992)- Offences u/s. 494,495,IPC are
cognizable offences so far as State of Andhra Pradesh is concered.
Same will have to be dealt with u/s. 155 and can be investigated by
Police. Sec. 198 will not apply.Cognizance taken by Court on basis of
report submitted by Police and not by “person aggrieved” u/s.198 is
legal.
2011 Cri.L.J 4373 (S.C)
2 ( d)."Complaint".-
(1 ) 2(d) - written complaint - need not be signed by complainant.
2013 CRI. L. J 1179 (S.C)
INDRA KUMAR PATODIA & ANR. VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES
LTD. & ORS.

( 2 ) 2 (d) - A complaint filed under section 138 of of the Negotiable
Instrument Act before the expiry of 15 days from the date on which the
notice has been served on the drawer / accused. Held, is no complaint in
the eyes of law, obviously, no cognizance of an offence can be taken on
the basis of such complaint.
2015 CRI. L. J 51 (S.C)
YOGENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS. SAVITRI PANDEY & ANR.
Criminal Appeal No. - 605 of 2012 of Supreme Court of Indian.
______________________
Author's blog
( 3 ) 2 (d)- Unlike FIR under section 154, Complaint can be filed for
cognizable as well as non- cognizable offences. On the other hand FIR
can only be filed for cognizable offences. No any format is prescribed
for filing a complaint, because it includes oral allegations as well as
allegations in writing. And only for complaint of warrant trial offences,
there is separate procedure of trial in Cr. P. C. If the offences made out
in complaint is triable by the Court of session or is summons trial, the
procedure provided for the trial of cases instituted on police report will be
followed.
-------------------------------------
( 4 ) 2 (d)- Submission of a police report under section 173 (2 ) of the
code of criminal procedure before the court pursuant to which the court
take cognizance of the offence. However, a police report cannot be
treated as complaint for the purpose of taking cognizance of an offence.
2019 (2) PLJR 21 Patna High Court.
SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH
THE SECRETARY, HOME & ORS.
Cr. W. J. C No. 895 of 2016 of Patna high court.
( 5 ) 2(d)- A complaint does not include a police report, i.e., a report
forwarded by a police officer to a magistrate under section 173 (2), as
the expression has been defined in section 2 ( r) charge sheet submitted
by the police in respect of a cognizable offence cannot be held to be a
complaint.
1980 Cr L J 363 (Or)
SURAJMANI SRIMALI VS. STATE OF ORISSA.

______________________
Author's blog
( 6 ) 2 (d)- Explanation to section 2 (d) of the code says, "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 the complainant;"
It means that if FIR is filed for a cognizable offence which contains
non- cognizable offence also and after investigation the case is found
true under non-cognizable offences only, then the police officer will
submit a report. This report given in explanation does not mean charge
sheet under section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C, rather it indicates that, there
should be a report in the form of complaint/ prosecution report and the
police officer will be the complainant, means the original informant on
whose report the FIR was lodged becomes witness , and the police
officer becomes the complainant.
No any special provision has been provided in Cr. P. C for the
official complainant which comes under warrant trial. Section 340 of the
Code provides procedure for cases mentioned in section 195 of the
Code . And section 343 of the Code states-"243. Procedure of
Magistrate taking cognizance. - (1) A Magistrate to whom a complaint is
made under section 340 or 341, notwithstanding anything contained in
chapter XV, proceed, as far as may be, to deal with the case as if it were
instituted on a police report." But there is no such provision in Cr. P. C
for official complaints. Proviso to section 200 of the Code states- "
Provided that, when the complainant is made in writing, the Magistrate
need not examine the complainant and the witnesses --
(a ) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of
his official duties or a Court has made the complainant;"
Section 200 is common provision for examination of complainant in all
the four types of trial during enquiry but not during trial. The provision for
trial of warrant-cases instituted otherwise than on a police report (means
complaint case) have been provided under section 244 to 247( including
both sections) of the Code. But no were anything specific has been

stated about official complaint, as stated in section 343 of the Code for
the cases instituted under section 195 of the Cr. P. C.
In all over Bihar it is in practice that the official 'warrant trial'
complaints are also treated as cases instituted on police report, without
having any such provision in Cr. P. C. Thus the evidence is not recorded
as provided under section 244 as before change and after framing of
change under section 246 ie. after change. Which don't have any
support of any authority.
As no format provided in the code of criminal procedure for the
filing of complaint, a format is hereby given to help in drafting a
complete. :-
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 200 OF Cr. P. C
In the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,

District… . … … ..
Complaint Case No. / Non FIR No… … … . Of year… . ..
A(Name, father's name and address of the complainant
. .. .Complainant
Versus
(1)B….( Name, father's name, age and address of the Accused
(2)C… . … . ..
(3) D… . … . ..
……….Accused
Name of Witnesses:-
( 1 )A….(Name, father's name and address of witnesses)
( 2 ) B… . … ..
( 3 ) C… . . . . .
The name of other witnesses will be give latter on.
Date and time of occurrence:-.......................
Place of occurrence:- … . .
Sections :- … … ..
The humble complaint filed on behalf of above named
complaint is as
Following:-

(1 ) That the Complainant is law abiding person,and on the other
hand accused persons are unsocial elements.
(2)State brief note of the occurrence in the light of sections attracted.
(3)That the complainant went to local police station, but the SHO
refused to register FIR.(If required)
(4) That the Complainant complied with the provision of sub-section (3)
of the section 154 of the Cr. P. C. But no case has been registered. The
receipt of post office is attached with the complaint petition.(If required)
In above circumstances your honour would be graciously

pleased to take cognizance of the offence and summon the
accused and after taking evidence be pleased to convict the
accused under given sections .
And for this, the petitioner shall ever pray
Signature of the
complainant
Note:- The above format is neither reported nor prescribed by the Code.
-------------------------------------
2(g )."Inquiry".-
(1 ) 2 (g) - Difference between trial and inquiry - Inquiry is conducted by
Magistrate before actual commencement of trial, it would commence
after case is brought to notice of Court on filing of charge-sheet . Court
can thereafter proceed to make inquiries. Inquiry has been given
meaning different than actual trial.
2017 Cri. L. J 569 (Gujarat H. C)
(2 ) Inquiry - Sec. 2 (g) - Inquiry relates to judicial act, not to steps taken
by police before or after registration of FIR. Even term 'Preliminary
inquiry' and 'inquiry' under section 159,relates to judicial exercise
undertaken by Court and not by Police.
2014 Cri. L. J 470 (SC)
(3 ) 2 (g) - Inquiry commences with filing of charge-sheet. It is an act of
Magistrate and does not relate to investigation.
2014 Cri. L. J 1118 (SC)

2 (h )."Investigation" -
(1 ) 2 (h) - investigation is for the purpose of collecting evidence by a
police officer, and otherwise by any person authorised by a magistrate in
this behalf, and also pertains to a stage before the trial commences -
investigation which ultimately leads to a police report under Cr.P C is an
investigation conducted by police and may be ordered in an enquiry
made by the Magistrate himself in "complaint" cases.
2019 4 PLJR (SC) 336
VINUBHAI HARIBHAI MALAVIYA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF
GUJARAT AND ANR.
Cr. Appeal Nos. 478 - 479 of 2017
(2) 2 (h) - investigation is exclusive doorman of police. Magistrate has no
control on it .
2013 Cri. L. J 160 (S C)
(3) 2(h) - Financial crunch of any state treasury is no ground for directing
complainant to supply financial assistance to police for conducting
investigation.
🆚
2000 CRI. L. J. 4600 (SC)
NAVINCHANDRA N. MAJITHIA STATE OF MEGHALAYA &
OTHERS.
Criminal Appeal No. -874 of 2000.
2 (n)."Offence" -
(1 ) 2 (n) - offence,does not come into existence only on grant of
permission for prosecution. This permission does not constitute integral
part of office itself. Place where permission was granted would not also
provide venue for trial.
2014 Cri. L. J 4350 (SC)
2 (q). "Pleader".
(1 ) 2 (q) - an agent with power of attorney, but, who is not authorised by
Court cannot be completed and cannot appear for accused before
Criminal Court.
1999 CRI. L. J. 2092. (SC)
T. C. MATHAI AND ANOTHER VS. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2 (s)."Police Station".-
(1 ) 2 (s) - Declaration and creation of Economic Offences Police Station.
Compliance as per section 2 (s) made by publishing on web-site and
communicating to various authorities. No Gazette notification issued as
per section 8 (1) of Bihar Police Act. Notification issued after 2 years
making it retrospectively applicable. Held, it does not vitiate actions
already taken.
2017 Cri. L. J 2436 (Pat. H. C)
2(wa)."Victim".-
(1 )2 (w a) -appeal against acquittal - right of "legal heir" to file appeal -
appellant claimed to be brother of deceased and "victim" as defined in
section 2 (w a) of code - appellant being brother and deceased being
survived by his wife, appellant was class II heir of deceased - he did not
fall within definition of "legal heir" and thus not entitled to prefer appeal
under section 372.
2013 CRI. L. J 2764
D. SUDHAKAR VS. PANAPU SREENIVASULU & OTHS.
(2 ) 2 (wa) - window of diseased of murder case comes within definition
of "victim". She can maintain appeal, even though leave to appeal, not
granted to state.
2017 Cri. L. J 2826 (SC)
(3) 2(wa) - " Victim "-the de facto sufferer of crime. It includes his/her
guardian or legal heirs.
🆚
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 723 ; (2019) 9 SCC 622.
RAVI S/O ASHOK GHUMARE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
Criminal Appeal No.- 488-489 of 2018.
3. Construction of references -
(1)Sec. 3 (4) (b) - power of Executive Magistrate to direct the police to register an
FIR on basis of private complaint lodged before him - Held, not available - if a
complaint is filed before an Executive Magistrate regarding an issue over which he
has administrative jurisdiction, and he proceeds to hold an administrative inquiry, he
may lodge an FIR himself in the matter.
(2019) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 737
(2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 344

NAMAN SINGH @ NAMAN PRATAPGARH SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF
U. P & OTHERS
Criminal Appeal No. - 1620 of 2018 of (S. C)
4. Trial of offences under the Indian penal code and

other laws -
(1)4 - Offence of money laundering, is cognizable in view of section 65 of
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act (15 of 2003) and sections 4 , 5 of
code, as offence under Act is punishable with imprisonment for more
than 3 years and extending up to 7 years.
2017 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 301 ( BOM.)

CHHAGAN CHANDRAKANT BHUJBAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3931 of 2016.
(2)4 - Criminal trial- Basic aim is to ensure that injustice is not meted out
to any citizen. Need balance, interests of accused as well victims, which
in turn depends on fair trial.
2018 Cri. L. J 907 (SC)
(3) 4-Trial commences on framing of charge. Not on taking of

cognizance.
2014 Cri. L. J 1118 (SC)
(4) 4- Under the Sales Tax Act it is not only a Bureau of Investigation
constituted by the state government who can conduct the investigation
or hold enquiry into any case of alleged or suspected evasion of tax as
well as mal-practice connected therewith. Police officer can investigate
into the offences under the panel code or any other act read with
offences committed under section 88 of the Sales Tax Act .
There is no provision in the Sales Tax Act which inhibits the
power of the police as conferred by the Code. The offence invisaged in
sub -section (6 ) of section 88 is specifically created as supplement to
any other penalty provided by any law for the time being in force .
2000 CRI. L. J. 1811 (SC)

STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. NARAYAN K. PATODIA.
Criminal Appeal No. -337 of 2000.2
5. Saving- ____________________
Author's blog
(1)5-The conjoint reading of section 4 & 5 of the code says that, if there
is any specific provision in any other law or special law, the same will be
guided by that specific provision, but in the absence of specific provision
in special law, it will be guided by the provisions provided in this Code.
For example:- If in any special act it has not been specifically given that
the offences given will be Cognizable or Non-cognizable, Bailable or
Non-bailable or triable by what Court, than in such absence, the First
Schedule Table II provided under heading "Classification Of Offences
Against Other Laws" in the Code will be looked into and be guided by
the provision provided there in the Code.
-------------------------------------------
(2) 5.Savings - Trial of offence by lokayukta. Provisions of Karnataka
Lokayukta Act, do not impliedly repeal provisions of Criminal Procedure
Code. Launch of prosecution by complainant invoking provisions of P. C.
Act read with Criminal Procedure Code is not curtailed by enforcement
of Karnataka Lokayukta Act.
2014 Cri. L. J 1469 (Karnataka H. C)
CHAPTER II Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
CONSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS AND

OFFICES
6. Classes of Criminal Courts. -

(1 ) 6- Expression "Court of session" includes Sessions Judge and also Additional or
Assistant Session Judge, but the expression "Sessions Judge" however cannot be
treated to include Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge.
2017 Cri. L. J 1 (Pat. H. C) (FB)
7. Territorial divisions. -
8. Metropolitan area. -
9. Court of Session. -
10. Subordination of Assistant Sessions Judges. -
(1 ) 10- Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to make provision for disposal of urgent
cases by authorising sub-Judge. Sessions Court however, can not act as special
Court, without any notification as provided under section 28 of Act. Direction issued
by Sessions Court cannot confer power on Assistant Sessions Judge to act as
special Court.
2018 Cri. L. J (NOC) 306 (Kerala H. C)
11. Courts of judicial magistrates.
(1 ) 11- Sessions Judge cannot shift, place of sitting of Judicial Magistrate. Only,
State Government can change, place of sitting in respect of Magistrate Court.
Administrative order passed by Sessions judge, shifting of place of trial from Civil
Court to jail premises was held without Jurisdiction.
2014 Cri. L. J 1207 (Allahabad H. C)
12. Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, etc. -
(1 ) 12- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate conferred on same powers as that of
Chief Judicial Magistrate as per section 12 (2) . Hence transfer of case for inquiry by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance to transferee Magistrate
is valid.
2014 Cri. L. J 2295 (SC) @
13. Special judicial magistrates. -
14. Local jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates . -
15. Subordination of Judicial Magistrates. -
16. Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates. -
17. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate. -
18. Special Metropolitan Magistrates. -
19. Subordination of Metropolitan Magistrates.-
20. Executive Magistrates. -
21. Special Executive Magistrate. -

22. Local jurisdiction of Executive Magistrates. -
23. Subordination of Executive Magistrates. - 24. Public
Prosecutors. - (1 ) 24- Public Prosecutor occupies a position of great
importance ,as the crimes are treated as a wrong against the society as
a whole. His role in the administration of justice is crucial, as he is not
just a representative of the aggrieved person, but that of the state at
large. Though he is appointed by the Government, he is not a servant of
the government or the investigating agency. He is an officer of the court
and his primary duty is to assist the court in arriving at the truth by
putting forth all the relevant material on behalf of the prosecution. While
discharging these duties, he must act in a manner that is fair to the court,
to the investigating agencies, as well as to accused. In instances where
he finds material indicating that the accused legitimately deserves a
benefit during the trial , he must not conceal it . Space carved out for the
public prosecutor is clearly that of an independent officer , who secures
the cause of justice and fair play in a criminal trial .
2020 (1 ) PLJR (SC) 147
REKHA MURARKA VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Criminal Appeal number 1727 of 2019 of S. C.
(2) 24- Cadar of prosecuting officer in state of Bihar does not include
post of public prosecutor and additional Public Prosecutor such a cadre
is not a regular cadre officer cuting officer within meaning of section 24 6
Assistant Public Prosecutor and not belonging to regular order of
prosecuting officer hence they are not eligible for appointment as a
public prosecutor unless they have require side qualifications let down in
section
24 (7) read with section 24( 9).
1996 CRI. L. J. 1498. (Patna HC)
JAIDHARI ROY AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. -2888 of 1994.
(3) 24- Investigating officer cannot be directed to consult Public
prosecution before filing report, As Public Prosecutor has no role to play
in investigation.
2000 CRI. L. J. 2453 (SC)

R. SARALA 🆚
T. S. VELU & OTHERS.
Criminal Appeal No. -366-368 of 2000.
25. Assistant public prosecutors. -
[25 A. Directorate of Prosecution. -
(1 ) 25-A- The status of Public Prosecutor is not as a part of the
investigating agency, but is an independent statutory authority.
🆚
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 472 ; (2019) SCC 178.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA SURENDRA PUNDLIK GADLING.
Chapter iii
Power of the courts
26.Courts by which offences are triable. -29. Sentences which
magistrates may pass. -
(1 ) 29- Sentence of fine exceeding Rs. 5000 (now 10000) for the offence of
dishonour of cheque, besides imprisonment cannot be imposed by Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, as provided under section 29 of the Code. Hence High
Court in appeal while maintaining conviction cannot impose sentence of fine
exceeding said jurisdictional limits prescribed under section 386 second proviso
of the Cr. P. C.
1999 CRI. L. J. 4606. (SC)
K. BHASKARAN VS. SANKARAN VAIDHYAN BALANCE AND ANOTHER.
____________________________
Author's blog
Note:- Now the above defect in Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 has been
removed by inserting Sections 143 to 147 by Act 55 of 2002, Section 10 (w.e.f.
6-2-2003). Which says as follows:-
"143. Power of court to try cases summarily.- (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), all offences
under this Chapter shall be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or by

a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of section 262 to 265 (both
inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trials:
provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this
section, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment
for a term not exceeding one year and as amount of fine exceeding 5000
rupees:"
_________________________________
30. Sentence of imprisonment in default of fine .-

(1 )30- Held, default sentence must be in excess of or in addition to
substantive sentence to which an offender may have been sentenced or to
which he may be liable under computation of a sentence.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 419; (2018) 18 SCC 718.
SHARAD HIRU KOLAMBE 🆚 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
31. Sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one

trial. -
(1 ) 31- "Life imprisonment" means, imprisonment for whole of the convict's
life. Neither section 57 of IPC nor section 61 of West Bengal Correctional
Services Act (32 of 1992) provide that life imprisonment means 20 years
imprisonment.
2013 CRI. L. J 1446 (SC)
LIFE CONVICTED BENGAL @ KHOKA @ PRASANTA SEN VS. B. K. SRIVASTAVA &
ORS.
(2) 31- Unless Court directs that substantive sentence should run concurrently,
the normal principal is that sentences would commence one after the
expiration of the other i.e. consecutively.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 419; (2018) 18 SCC 718.

39. Public to give information of certain offences. -
(1 ) 39- ' Sanaha' recorded by the I. O on the basis of the telephonic information
not containing any material particular adverse to the prosecution case. it's
non-production does not prejudice the case of the accused . The relationship of
witnesses cannot be treated as a disqualification per say particularly when, in
the present society dis- interested witnesses do not come forward to depose
and get associated with the crime. In the present case, the I.O admitted that he
did not examine the other witnesses of the locality . Merely due to the lapse on
the part of I. O entire prosecution case cannot fail. Regarding mentioning of
case number on the inquest report, it is mentioned as such by the I. O to
correlate the document with the particular case and no fault lies in it.
2007 (1) BBCJ V 299 (SC)
SK. GAYASUDDIN VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Chapter V
Arrest of persons
41. When police may arrest without warrant. -
(1 ) 41- No arrest should be made only because of offence is non bailable and
cognizable and therefore, lawful for police officers to do so. Existence of power
to arrest is one thing, justification for exercise of it is quite another. Apart from
power to arrest, police officer must be able to justify reasons there of. No arrest
can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an
offence made against a person . Section 498-A of IPC was introduced with
avowed object to combat menace of harassment to a woman at hand of her
husband and his relatives. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast
scars forever. Attitude to arrest first and then proceed with rest is despicable. It
has become a handy tool to police officers who lack sensitivity or act with
oblique motive.
2014 (3) BBCJ IV - 282
ARNESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal Appeal No. - 1277 of 2014.

(2) 41- Implementation of and strict compliance with directions issued in D. K.
Basu, (1997) 1 SCC 416, Jogender Kumar, (1994) 4 SCC 260 and Arnesh Kumar,
(2014) 8 SCC 273, stressed.
(2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 276 ; (2018) 10 SCC 443.
SOCIAL ACTION FORUM FOR MANAV ADHIKAR 🆚
UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY
OF LAW AND JUSTICE.
Writ petition ( C) No. 73 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2017 and
Writ petition (Crl.) No. 156 of 2017.
(3) 41- In a writ petition filed for arrest of the accused persons, who were
named in FIR and for completing the investigation.
Held, arrest of an accused in course of investigation is the dictionary
jurisdiction of the police. If it is mechanically made, same would cause
more harm and would be detrimental to the criminal justice system.
Court cannot direct the police to arrest a persons, it cannot take the
role of police, an arrest has to be made only if it is found necessary
under the facts and circumstances of the case.
🆚
2019(4) PLJR 158
RAJ KUMAR YADAV THE STATE OF BIHAR
Cr. WJC No. 1047 of 2019 (Patna HC)
41 A. Notice of appearance before police officer. -

(1 ) 41 A- the division bench of High Court of Delhi, has propounded a model of
41- A Cr.P.C notice. Which is as following:-
To ,
[Name of accused/ Notice]
[ last known address]
[Phone number /Email ID (if any) ]
Notice under section 41 A of the Cr. P. C
In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 41 A of the
Cr. P. C. I hereby inform you that during the investigation of FIR /Case number.
…. ……..dated …………….under section……………………………...registered at
Police Station……………………….it is revealed that there are reasonable

ground to question you to a certain facts and circumstances from you, in
relation to the present investigation. Hence you are directed to appear before
me at…,...........a.m / p.m. on ………….. at …………………….Police Station with
proof of identity and residence .
You are directed to comply with all and /or the following directions .
a)You will not commit any offence in future .
b) You will not tamper with the evidences in the case in any manner
whatsoever
c) You will not make any threat, inducement, 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 the Police Officer.
d) You will appear before the court as and when required/ directed.
e) You will join the investigation of the case as and when required and will
cooperate in the investigation.
f) You will disclose all the facts truthfully without considering any part relevant
for the purpose of Investigation to reach to the right conclusion of the case as
per law.
g) You will produce all relevant documents/ material required for the purpose
of Investigation as per law.
h) You will not allow in any manner destruction of any evidence relevant for the
purpose of Investigation /trial of the case.
i) Any other conditions, which may be imposed by the investigating Officer /S H
O as per the facts of the case.
Failure to attend/ comply with the terms of this note is, can render you liable
for arrest under section 41 A (3) and (4) of the Cr.P.C .
[signature]
[Name and Designation] [affix seal]
Do the above model of notice appears to be effective territorial
compulsion, the same can be followed, as the same is upheld by the Honorable
division bench of Delhi High Court, and further till the said notice is assailed and
reverse bhaiya largest bench for the apex court.

2018 2 Crimes (HC) 601]
AMANDEEP SINGH JOHAR VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI.
50. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and

of right to be. -
(1 ) 50- At the time of arrest accused person informed of being arrested for an
offence under section 307 IPC. But there were other sections also under which
he was arrested, which was disclosed by accused when his bail petition was
moved. Held, implies information to him by prosecuting authority of the
grounds of his arrest, and it would be deemed to be sufficient compliance of
section 50 (1) of the Code and article 22 of constitution. Hence accused is not
entitled to any compensation.
1999 CRI. L. J. 274. (Allahabad HC)
UDAYBHAN SHUKI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS.
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. -1620 of 1997.
53. Examination of accused by medical practitioner at the

request of police officer. -
(1 ) 53- Until Parliament makes appropriate law, Judicial Magistrate has power
to order a person to give his voice sample for purpose of Investigation of crime.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 252; (2019) 8 SCC 1.
RITESH SINHA 🆚 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
Criminal Appeal No. -2003 of 2012 with 1318 of 2013 and 1187-1190 of 2019.
(2) 53- Direction for identification of a person by DNA test may be given, when
there is reasonable ground for believing that an examination of the person will
afford evidence as to the commission of an offence. Request for such test and
direction there of, held, to be based on the police authorities satisfaction based
on materialis collected after substantial investigation into the matter. It is a
serious matter which should not be lightly resorted without there being
appropriate satisfaction of the requirements of directing DNA test.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 382; (2019) 7 SCC 769.
KATHI DAVID RAJU 🆚 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH.

53.A. Examination of person accused of rape by medical

practitioner. -
(1 ) 53.A- Non holding of DNA test, or, failure to prove DNA test report, or, DNA
test result favouring accused. Held, conviction may still be possible based on
remaining evidence, depending on facts and circumstances of the case.
(2017) 2 SCC (CRI) 372.
SUNIL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH.
Criminal Appeal No. - 39,40 of 2014.
74. Warrant directed to police officer. -

(1 ) 74- Closer of prosecution evidence on the ground of non compliance of
production of Investigating Officer under section 74 of the code , dealing with
warrant of arrest to procure attendance of Investigating Officer. Held , to be
improper and set side .
1998 CRI. L. J. 1569 (Allahabad HC)
C.-Proclamation and attachment
82. Proclamation for person absconding. -

(1 ) 82- Just because absconder happens to be son, living with his parents in
the same house , property of of father could not be seized, unless absconder
had any right , title and interest in that house or over property seized. If there is
no specific finding in this regard . Seizure utter violation of the mandate of the
Code .
III (1996) CCR 1 (Patna HC)
(2) 82- Failure to comply with entry mandatory provision of section 25 of the
Police Manual, which provides for preparation of inventory. Seizure list/
inventory not sent up to court in spite of directions by Court. Held, to be
deliberate negligence on part of the police officer . Merely stressing on
absconder being hardened criminal, wanted by police and resides with his
father under one roof, not sufficient for seizure under attachment. Court cannot
be silent spectator . compensation of rupees 10000 awarded to father, to be

paid by Officer- in -Charge, liable for illegal and arbitrary action without
authority of law.
III (1996) CCR 1 (Patna HC).
(3) 82- Court issued only someone against accused concern however when
someone were returned answer Court did not issue any warrant to arrest
accused through concern police does order is going program nation is not
proper as proclamation can be issued only after warrant is returned.
2006 CRI. L. J. 3230
NIRUJOGI APPALA NAIDU VS. NIRUJOGI ROJA.
83. Attachment of property of person absconding. -

(1 ) 83- Without service of summons warrant of arrest and process under
Section 82 , 83 of Cr.P.C cannot be issued . If issued same is liable to be set
aside.
2009 CRI. L. J. 4716 (Jharkhand HC).
SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER.
Cr. M. P. No. -747 of 2005.
(2) 83- Summons issued against accused, but service report of it never received
and thereafter Court issued bailable and non- bailable warrant against
accused. Even though arrest warrants were not served upon accused but he
was declared proclaimed offender and thereafter order of attachment was
passed against him.
Held, it is the duty of the Court to enquire about the service of summons
upon the accused. Order issuing bailable warrant and all subsequent orders bad
in law, and set aside.
2019 (4) PLJR 534 (patna HC)
VIKRAM KUMAR TIWARI @ VIKRAM TIWARI 🆚 STATE OF BIHAR.
Cr. WJC No. 1110 of 2019.
Chapter VII
Processes to compel the production of things

A. - summons to produce
91. Summons to produce document or other thing. -

(1) 91- A case diary of another case, not pertaining to the trial in hand , can be
summoned under section 91 of the Code,if the court trying the case considers
that production of such a case diary is necessary or desirable for the purpose of
trial, and the restrictions imposed under sub-section ( 2) and (3 ) of section 172
would not apply.
1999 Cri. L. J. 3491 (SC)
STATE OF KERALA VS. BABU AND OTHERS
97. Search for persons wrongfully confined. -

(1 ) 97- issuance of search warrant for nine years old son of the parties living
with his father come and natural guardian held cannot be said to be under any
illegal confinement application for issuance of the warrant for recovery of child
not maintainable.
1999 CRI. L. J. 5023. (SC)
RAMESH VS. SMT. LAXMI BAI.
100. Person in charge of a closed place to allow search. -

(1 ) 100- Carrying Contraband substance under Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 from bag kept in scooter. Held, for search
and seizure compliance with section 50 of NDPS Act is not required.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 197 ; (2018) 18 SCC 540
MOHINDER SINGH 🆚 STATE OF PUNJAB.
D. - Miscellaneous
102.Power of police officer to seize certain property. -

(1 ) 102- Expression any property appearing in section 102 of the Code would
not include immovable property.
Section 102 of the Code is not a general provision which enables and
authorises the police officer to seize immovable property for being able to be
produced in the Criminal Court during trial. This, however, would not bar or
prohibit the police officer from seizing documents/papers of title relating to
immovable property, as it is distinct and different from seizure of immovable
property.
Power of the police officer under section 102 of the Code to seize any
property, which may be found under circumstances that create suspicion of the
commission of any offence, would not include the power to attach, seize and
seal an immovable property.
2019 (4) PLJR (SC) 199
NEVADA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS 🆚 STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1481,1487 of 2019 with 1122 of 2011.
Chapter IX
Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents

125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. -
(1 ) 125- Magistrate has power to grant ad- interim maintenance, pending
final decision.
1985 BBCJ 160 (SC)
SAVITRI VS. SRI GOVIND SINGH RAWAT.
(2) 125- Once decree for divorce passed. Decree for restitution of conjugal
rights becomes in significant . Non compliance by wife of decree of restitution
of conjugal rights, do not disentitle her to claim maintenance . Restriction
imposed by section 125 (4) of the Code not attracted in case of claim for
maintenance by divorced woman .
III (19 97) CCR 384 (Gujarat HC).

(3) 125- Giving maintenance is pious duty of husband , moral as well as legal
obligation . Husband not allowed to linger proceedings by taking recourse to
procedural subterfuges .
II (1997) CCR 483
(4) 125- Second wife whose marriage is void is not entitled to claim
maintenance . However, children born to second wife from the husband can
claim maintenance from him under section 125 of the code .
1999 CRI. L. J. 4510 (Patna HC).
BABY DEVI AND OTHERS VS. ARUN KUMAR AMAN @ RAMESHWAR RAHI @
RAMESHWAR PRASAD MANDAL @ DURGA
Criminal Revision No. -36 of 1994.
(5) 125- Revisional Court has no power to reassess evidence and substitute its
own finding in order granting maintenance to wife passed by Magistrate . No
legal ground is available for revisional Court to interfere with finding of fact
arrived at by Magistrate. Order of revisional Court setting aside finding of
Magistrate by reassessment of evidence is not proper.
1999 CRI. L. J. 3378 (Allahabad HC).
SMT. RAJMATI VS. MITHAI AND ANOTHER
Criminal Revision No. -52 of 1990.
(6) 125- Marriage between parties has been proved. However, petitioner was
already married but he duped respondent by suppressing factum of alleged first
marriage. He cannot be permitted to deny benefit of maintenance to
respondent, taking advantage of his own wrong. When marriage between
respondent and petitioner was solemnized, petitioner had kept respondent in
dark about his first marriage. False representation was given to respondent
that he was single and was competent to enter into marital tie with
respondent. As such , petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his
own wrong and turn around to say that respondents are not entitled to
maintenance by filing petition under section 125 of the code .
2013 (4) BBCJ IV - 175 (SC).
BADSHAH VS. SOU. URMILA BADSHAH GODSE & ANR.

(7) 125- Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act (43 of 2005) section
12 , Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955 ) section 11, maintenance claim by wife.
Husband denying claim on ground that their marriage was void by producing
marriage certificate of wife's earlier Marriage. Fact of earlier marriage denied
by wife . Court in collateral proceeding for maintenance cannot hold marriage
void and deny wife's claim . Marriage has to be held as subsisting unless
annulled by competent Court. Wife entitled to maintenance .
2013 CRI. L. J. 684 (SC).
DEOKI PANJHIYARA VS. SHASHI BHUSHAN NARAYAN AZAD & ANR.
(8) 125- Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (78 of 1956), Section 18.
Maintenance granted under section 125 of the Code is tentative . It does not
foreclose remedy available under 1956 Act . Compromise to receive permanent
alimony and give up right to claim maintenance reached in proceeding under
section 125 of the Code, order passed accordingly would not pick preclude wife
from making claim under Section 18 of 1956 Act .
2013 CRI. L. J. 2060 (SC) .
NAGENDRAPPA NATIKAR VS. NEELAMMA.
(9) 125- Maintenance under section 125 of the Code is applicable to a Muslim
woman who has been divorced.
2015 (3) BBCJ IV- 127 (SC).
SHAMIMA FAROOQUI VS. SHAHID KHAN.
2015 CRI. L. J. 2551 (SC).
(10) 125- Divorced Muslim woman who has received 'Mahar' is not disentitled
to apply for maintenance under section 125 of the Code.
2015 CRI. L. J. 4921 (Patna HC)
MD. SAGIR VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Cr. Rev. No. 461 of 2013.
(11) 125- Amount awarded under section 125 of the code is adjustable against
the amount awarded in matrimonial proceedings under section 24 of Hindu
Marriage Act as alimony to wife.
1999 CRI. L. J. 466. (SC)

SANDEEP CHAUDHARY VS. RADHA CHAUDHARY.
(12) 125- In case of non payment of maintenance by husband. Magistrate can
only sentence him for a period of one month or until payment, if sooner made.
Magistrate cannot impose sentence continuing into custody until payment is
made. For breach of order wife can approach Magistrate again for similar
relief.
1999 CRI. L. J. 5060. (SC)
SHAHADA KHATOON AND OTHERS VS. AMJAD ALI AND OTHERS.
(13) 125- strict proof of marriage is not required in maintenance proceedings it
is sufficient if clayment remark Si satisfies the court that claimant and her
husband lived as husband and wife performance of essential ceremonies need
not also be proved .
2000 CRI. L. J. 1. (SC)
DWARIKA PRASAD SATPATHY VS. BIDYUT PRAVA DIXIT AND ANOTHER.
Criminal Appeals Nos. -1082-83 of 1999.
(14) 125(4) - Plea that divorce was on account of desertion by wife is irrelevant
for maintenance. She continues to enjoy status of wife for claiming
maintenance.
2000 CRI. L. J. 1498 (SC)
ROHTASH SINGH VS. SMT. RAMENDRI & OTHERS.
Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No. -2763 of 1999.
145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is

likely to cause breach of peace. -
(1 ) 145- Initiation of proceeding under section 145 of the Code and passing of
order under section 146 (1) of the Code, not permitted . When the land in
question subsequently is the suit land in a pending civil suit, even if entire
disputed land in both proceeding are not identical or some of the parties are
different.

2000 CRI. L. J 3245.
(2) 145- When both, proceeding under section 145 of the Code and civil suit for
possession or declaration of title in respect of same property is pending .
Proceeding under section 145 should not be allowed to continue. But it cannot
be said that in every case where a civil suit is filled, section 145 proceedings
would never lie.
2000 CRI. L. J. 2226 (SC)
AMRESH TIWARI VS. LALTA PRASAD DUBEY & ANOTHER.
(3)145- Order passed by executive magistrate under section 145 of the
Cr.P.C. Revisional Court set aside the order on the ground that because
of the land in dispute, there is a house situated. High Court held, that the
said order of revisional court is totally erroneous from the materials on
record, such ground/ reasoning given by revisional Court cannot be
sustained.
🆚
2019(4) PLJR 254
SURENDRA SINGH THE STATE OF BIHAR
Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2018.
146.Power to attach subject of dispute and to appoint
receiver. -
(1 ) 146- SDM Attached Entire purchased land of petitioner and appointed
receiver under section 146 of the Code. Dispute was only with respect to 26.5
decimal of said land for which Proceeding under section 144 was instituted.
Held, order of attachment of entire property, without any inquiry or a
proper determination of or identifying the disputed plot of land, is
unsustainable and set aside the said order.
2019 (4) PLJR 594. (Patna HC)
ANIL KUMAR @ MANTU SAO 🆚 STATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3874 of 2017.
Chapter XII

Information to the police and their powers to investigate
154. Information in cognizable cases. -
(1 ) 154- FIR cannot be quashed on grounds, that police station did not have
territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence. Police officer cannot refuse to
record FIR and investigate it for want of territorial jurisdiction.
1999 CRI. L. J. 4566 (SC).
SATVINDER KAUR VS. STATE (GOVERNMENT OF N. C. T DELHI) AND ANOTHER.
Criminal Appeal No. -1031 of 1999
Reversed- (1999) 1 Crimes 271 (Delhi)
(2) 154- FIR is intimation about occurrence of incident it need not contain all
details of incident .
2013 CRI. L. J. 194 (SC).
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MUNESH.
2003 CRI. L. J. 2322 (SC).
(3) 154- Second FIR for same incident cannot be allowed to be registered . If
allowed possibility of abuse of power to investigate cannot be ruled out .
Exceptions where second FIR is permissible.
However, where the incident is separate , offences are similar or
different, or even where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does
not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded first, then a second FIR
could be registered.
The scheme of The Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for any
right of hearing to accused, at the time of registration of the first information
report.
2013 CRI. L. J. 776 (SC).
ANJU CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
(4) 154- Cryptic teliphonic information is not FIR.
2013 CRI. L. J. 1137 (SC).

SURAJIT SARKAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL.
(5) 154- Delay in lodging FIR is not ground to throw away entire prosecution
case.
2013 CRI. L. J. 2199 (SC).
KULWANT SINGH & ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB.
(6) 154- No adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution on ground of
delay in lodging FIR.
2003 CRI. L. J. 1564 (SC). ; 2003 CRI. L. J. 1282 (SC).
(7) 154- Some delay in lodging FIR and its receipt by the court will not be a
ground to discard the prosecution case if it stands proved by the evidence
available on the record.
2006 (3) PLJR 253. ( Patna HC)
NARAYAN SINGH & Ors. (in 460) ; BHAGWAN SINGH & ANR. (in 560) VS. STATE
OF BIHAR.
Criminal Appeal Nos. - 460,560 of 2000 (DB).
(8) 154- Omission to mention name of accused in FIR. Informant knew accused
but has actually not seen incident . He scribed what was told to him by
eye-witnesses, who were not knowing accused. Omission to mention name of
accused in FIR not fatal and no prejudice caused to accused on account of non-
examination of informant .
2003 CRI. L. J. 1524 (SC).
Reversed :- Criminal Appeal No. - 305 of 1989
(9) 154- General diary entry can be treated as FIR in appropriate case , if it
discloses commission of cognizable offence .
2003 CRI. L. J. 2322 (SC).
Reversed :- Criminal Revision No. - 1913 of 1990 (Calcutta)
(10) 154- Wife seeking directions to police officers to register criminal case
against her husband . Allegations of demand of Dowry and commission of
offences under section 406, 498 A of Panel Code by husband and his family
members . Police officers already making investigations on complaint of wife
alleging same offence . Report of police officers showing that dispute was of

civil nature and no action at level of police necessary. Facts showing that prima
facie there was difference of mind between husband and wife. Alleged demand
of dowry appearing to be afterthought. Direction to police for registration of
criminal case against husband and his family members cannot be given .
1998 CRI. L. J. 1305
MRS. RITU SAREEN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS.
(11) 154- Copy of FIR received by the Magistrate on 10th August ,dead body
discovered on 8th August no circumstances to hold FIR ante-dated.
III (1997) CCR 45 (SC).
(12) 154- FIR in case of dowry death cannot be controverted by statements
made in subsequent divorce petition.
1999 CRI. L. J. 462 (SC).
RAM KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF HARYANA.
(13) 154- In murder case FIR lodged promptly and investigation commenced.
mere non mentioning of case number in inquest report or in post-mortem
report is not fatal.
1999 CRI.. L. J. 4498 (Gauhati HC).
NIRANJAN SHIL VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA
Criminal Appeal (J) No. -29 of 1995.
(14) 154- Categorical statement by informant, a prosecution witness that he
had given report to police on 1st of October. Explanation by investigation
officer that 2nd of October being public holiday he has sent documents on 3rd
October found to be acceptable. Further letter written by informant to
Superintendent of Police on 3rd October indicating that several persons had
already been arrested. Thus FIR lodged on 1st October cannot be said to be
fabricated.
1999 CRI. L. J. 4603 (SC).
RAMESH LAXMAN GAVLI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Appeal Nos. -587 with 588 of 1996.

(15) 154- Fact that constable consulted superior officer before formerly
recording FIR. It does not mean that any changes were introduced.
2005 CRI. L. J. 3085 (SC)
(16) 154- Delay of two days in sending FIR for the signature of C. J. M. is not
fatal, if other evidence Prove the entire prosecution case and murder of
Daylight murder and accused were identified.
[ ( 1997 ) 1 BLJR 65] (Patna HC)
(17) 154- Section 154 of the code Casts a statutory duty on police officer to
register the case as disclosed in complaint and then to proceed with the
investigation . Provision is mandatory , genuineness or credibility of
information is not a condition precedent for registration of the case. Complaint
filed before magistrate under section 147 148 149, 448, 452, 323 and 395 of
IPC . Magistrate directing police to register the case and investigate. Police
registered case only under section 452, 380, 323, 34 of IPC . No case registered
under section 147 ,148 149, 448 and 395 IPC. No investigation was carried out
resulting miscarriage of Justice . Trial Magistrate accepted charge under
section 452, 323, 34 IPC . District Judge also failed to take notice the
miscarriage of Justice by trial Judge. High Court corrected the error committed
by two Courts, order of High Court does not suffer from any infirmities in
directing Magistrate to proceed in the matter in accordance with the law under
section 209 of the code.
2007 (1) BBCJ IV - 205.
LALLAN CHAUDHRY & OTHS VS. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
(18) 154- Information about incident was received at police out post on
9-4-1995 . Requisition was sent pursuant to which dying declaration was
recorded on same day. On 10 -4 -1995 the statement was taken from deceased
by police officer himself . Formal FIR wan recorded on 12- 4- 1995. Therefore,
there is no delay in recording formal FIR , as it stands explained.
2009 CRI. L. J. 4408 (SC).
KAMALAVVA & ANR. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA.
(19) 154- FIR is not an Encyclopaedia, and if necessary details are there on its
basis detail narration by witnesses cannot be doubted.
(2017) 2 SCC (CRI) 448. ; (2017) 4 SCC 558.

M. G. ESHWARAPPA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA.
(20) 154- Courts normally view delay in lodging FIR with suspicion, because
there is possibility of concoction of evidence against accused. Whether delay
throws such a suspicion depends upon a variety of factors. Even a long delay
can be condoned if there is no motive for implicating accused and a prompt FIR
need not necessarily guarantee its truthfulness. Only a common sense view has
to be taken. Endeavour is always to take the injured person to hospital
immediately and there after report incident to the Police .
(2017) 2 SCC (CRI) 673 ; (2017) 6 SCC. 1.
MUKESH AND OTHERS VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Criminal Appeal No. - 607,608,609 & 610 of 2017 .
(21) 154- Capacity of reproducing things as it is, some may lack the ability to
do so . Sometimes in the state of shock, they may miss the important details,
because people tend to react differently when they come across a violent act
merely because names of accused are not stated and their names are not
specified in FIR , even though the FIR was lodged by the person who was
himself seriously injured and accused were known to him. That may not be a
ground to doubt contents of FIR and the case of prosecution cannot be thrown
out on such account.
(2018) 2 SCC (CRI) 235. ; (2018) 3 SCC 66. ; 2018 CRI. L. J. 1812.
LATESH @ DADU BABURAO KARLEKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
Criminal Appeal No. - 1301 of 2015 (SC)
(22) 154- Registration of second FIR for offence of murder subsequent to first
FIR for offence of abduction. As offences Under two FIR's are distinct and
different and second offence committed during investigation of the first ,
second FIR cannot be said to be lodged in course of same transaction. No
question of further investigation to be made in crime of abduction .
Registration of separate FIR legal and proper.
2019 CRI. L. J. 2349. (SC) ; (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 354 ; (2019) 4 SCC 771.
PATTU RAJAN VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU.
Criminal Appeal No. - 680, 681 of 2009. with 799-802 and 822-824 of 2009.

(23) 154- Bihar Minor Mineral concession rules 1972 . Rule 4 , 26-A and 4O
(1).FIR registered for running a brick kiln without obtaining mining lease and
paying royalty to the state. No prosecution for an offence under the rule can be
lodged without a written complaint. It bars the Court from taking cognizance of
the office under the provisions of the rule, unless complaint is made in writing
to the Court by a competent officer empowered by the Government. A police
report cannot be made a basis for the court to take cognizance of an offence
under the provisions of the rules .
2019 (2) PLJR 21 (Patna HC)
SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Cr. W. J. C. No. - 895 of 2016. (Patna HC)
(24) 154- following directions were held by Supreme Court regarding
registration of FIR:-
(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under section 154 of the code if the
information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary
enquiry is permissible in such a situation.
(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but
indicates the necessity for any enquiry, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted
only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not . (iii) If the
enquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be
registered. In cases where preliminary enquiry ends in closing the complaint, a
copy of the entry of such closer must be supplied to the first informant
forthwith and not later than one week . It must disclose reasons in brief for
closing the complaint and not proceeding further. (iv) The police officer cannot
avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action
must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information
received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
(v) The scope of preliminary enquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of
the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals
any cognizable offence.
(vi) As to what type and In which case is preliminary enquiry is to be conducted
will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases
in which preliminary enquiry may be made are as under : (a) Matrimonial
disputes /family disputes

(b) Commercial offices
(c ) Medical negligence cases
(d )corruption cases
(e ) Cases where there is abnormal delay/ latches in initiating criminal
prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without
satisfactory explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions
which may warrant preliminary enquiry.
(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the
complainant, a preliminary enquiry should be made time bond and in any case
it should not exceed 7 days. The effect of such delay and the causes of it must
be reflected in the General Diary entry.
LALITA KUMARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH.
Write Petition (Criminal) No. -68 of 2008. With
Criminal Appeal No. -1410 of 2011 with
Criminal Appeal No. -1267 of 2007 and
Contempt Petition ( c) No. -D26722 of 2008.
Also see- (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 276 ; (2018) 10 SCC 443.
SOCIAL ACTION FORUM FOR MANAV ADHIKAR 🆚
UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY
OF LAW AND JUSTICE.
Writ petition ( C) No. 73 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2017 and
Writ petition (Crl.) No. 156 of 2017.
(25) 154- no adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution on ground of

delay in lodging FIR, if it is explained.
2003 CRI. L. J. 1282 (SC)
AMAR SINGH VS. BALWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS.

(26) 154- Locus standi of complainant is a concept foreign to criminal
jurisprudence . Anyone can set the criminal law in motion except where the
statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary.
2017 (4) PLJR (SC) 167
RATANLAL VS. PRAHLAD JAT AND OTHERS.
(27) 154- Offence of possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of
income . Earlier FIR was filed and duly investigated into and culminated in "B"
form and accepted by competent Court. Inclusion of same period in second FIR
with further period is not barred.
1999 CRI. L. J. 2583. (SC)
M. KRISHNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA
(28) 154- During investigation Vigilance coming across fresh material indicating
Commission of offence. Registration of FIR not barred. Even though prior writ
petition for issuance of direction to State Government to register case was
dismissed on the ground that no case is made out.
2000 CRI. L. J. 2278 (SC)
K. KRUNAKARAN VS. STATE OF KERALA AND & ANOTHER.
(29) 154- Directions regarding disclosure of name of victim in FIR and during
investigation -
Held, though the name of victim will have to be disclosed in FIR, the copy of
FIR relating to offences under section 376, 376 -A 376 -AB, 376- B, 376- C, 376-
D, 376-DA 376- DB or 376-E IPC and offences under POCSO Act must not be put
in the public domain. However the Sessions Judge/ Magistrate /Special Court
concerned can for reasons to be recorded in writing and keeping in view the
interest of victim permit the copy of FIR to be given to certain persons. Police
officers investigating such case should as far as possible use a pseudonym to
describe the victim unless it is absolutely necessary to write down the identity.
Even in matters Where the Identity of victim is required to be disclosed, like (i)
when samples are taken from her body Kama 2 when medical examination is

conducted, 3 when DNA profiling is done, four when date of birth of the team
has to be established by getting records from school, etc the police officer
should move with circumspection and this close this disclose at little of The
Identity of the victim as possible but enough to link the victim with the
information shout authority is to which the name of the team is disclosed by
investigating agency for Court are also duty born to keep the name and identity
of victim a secret and not disclosed it in any manner except in their report
which should only be sent in a sealed cover police to ensure that all
correspondences or a memo exchange or issued where in the name of victim is
disclosed are kept in a sealed cover and are not disclosed to public at large
including media and person seeking information under RTI act does police
should keep all documents in which the name of victim is disclose as far as
possible in a sealed cover and replace these documents by identical document
in which the name of victim is removed in all records which may be scrutinized
in the public domain this thing cover can be file in court along with report under
section 173 e of CrPC.
(2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 772 ; (2019) 2 SCC 703.
NIPUN SAXENA & ANOTHER 🆚 UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS.
Writ Petition ( C) No. 565 of 2012 with 568 of 2012, 22,148 of 2013, Writ
Petition (Crl) No. 1 of 2013…
(30) 154- Weather in view of the promulgation of Legal Metrology Act
2009, the offences relating to weights and measures particularly short
delivery of the petroleum product sold to the public at large through
dispensing machines, are open to be registered and investigated by the
police authorities in terms of the provisions of IPC and Code of Criminal
Procedure or the provisions of IPC and Cr.P.C for the said purpose
would stand ousted/ obliterated/ eclipsed by virtue of section 51 of the
Legal Metrology Act 2009 .
it has been held that the offence under chapter XIII of IPC cannot
be lodged in view of the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act 2009.
Whereas the prosecution under other offences of IPC has been found to
be maintainable.
🆚
2019(4) PLJR 244 (SC)
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AMAN MITTAL & ANOTHER
Criminal Appeal No. 1328-1332 of 2019.

(31 ) 154- In a case where there is a theft of sand and gravels from the
government land, the police can register a case, investigate the same
and submit a final report under section 173,Cr.P.C before a magistrate
having jurisdiction for the purpose of taking cognizance as provided in
section 190 (1) (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ingredients constituting the offence under the MMDR Act and
the ingredients of dishonestly removing sand and gravel from the river
beds without consent, which is the property of the state, is a distinct
offence under the IPC. Hence, for the commission of offence under
section 378, Cr.P.C, on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate
having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without
awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorised
officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions
of the MMRD Act. Consequently the contrary view taken by the different
high court cannot be sustained in law and therefore overruled.
🆚
2014 CRI. L. J. 4854 (SC)
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI SANJAY
with
JAYSUKH BAVANJI SHINGALIA, with MALABHAI SHALABHAI
🆚
RABARI, with KALUBHAI DULABHAI KHACHAR, with SONDABHAI
HANUBHAI BHARWAD STATE OF GUJARAT
Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 2011 with 2105,2108-2112, 2107 & 2106 of
2013.
155. Information as to non- cognizable cases and
investigation of such cases. -
(1 ) 155- FIR was registered under section 139 of Electricity Act 2003 and
section 279 and 427 of the IPC the allegation was that the truck damaged 11KV
electric pole, which interrupted the power supply for 18 hours . No allegation
that the truck was being driven rashly or negligently so as to endangered
human life nor act of driver was likely to cause hurt or injury to any other
person. Held, offence under section 279 of IPC not made out. In absence of such
allegations , further offence under Section 139 of Electricity Act and section 427
of IPC are non cognizable. As such police has no jurisdiction to Institute FIR on
the basis of written complaint and proceed with investigation without order of
a Magistrate. Hence FIR was ordered to be quashed.
2019 (2) PLJR 767 (Patna HC).
SUCHIT KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Cr. C. W. J. C No. - 526 of 2019. (Patna HC)
156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case. -

(1 ) 156- Whenever a Magistrate directs an Investigation on "complaint" the
police has to register a cognizable case. Treating the same as FIR.
III (1997) CCR 36 (SC)
(2 ) 156- Non sending of blood stained clothes for chemical examination by the
investigating officer, amounts to gross dereliction of duty on his part.
Investigation conducted in most perfunctory manner. Director General of Police
directed to conduct inquiry including departmental proceeding against said
investigating officer .
1999 Cr. L. J. 2550 (Patna HC)
NEYAZ AHMAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
(3) 156- Complaint filed before magistrate, was sent to police for investigation
under section 156 of the code. Cognizance taken on receipt of Police report and
process issued . It was not necessary to take recourse to procedure under
section 202 to 204 of the code .
1999 CRI. L. J. 3360 (Madhya Pradesh HC)
SMT. MANORAMA PATEL AND OTHERS VS. SUBHASH SONI
Criminal Revision No. -1530 of 1998
Cases Referred- Madhu Bala Vs. Suresh Kumar, 1997 Cri. L. J. 3757; AIR 1997 SC
3104.
(4) 156- Irregularities in investigation which are not affecting substratum of
prosecution case are inconsequential.
2013 CRI. L. J. 953 (SC).

N. V. SUBBA RAO VS. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI/SPE,
VISAKHAPATNAM A. P. *
(5) 156- Defective investigation is not fatal to prosecution case , except when
defects are so grave, that whole investigation can be dubbed as dishonest or
guided investigation.
2013 CRI. L. J. 3227.
KARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
2003 CRI. L. J. 1282 (SC). *
(6) 156- Shoddy investigation by investigating officer . No action taken by
Government , despite serious finding of unfairness against investigating officer
. Government directed to take action as per law .
2013 CRI. L. J. 3227.
KARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
(7) 156- Investigating officer was member of reading party . Sent FIR to police
station and there after himself carried formal investigation. Held, investigation
not vitiated, therefore trial would not also be vitiated. Moreover investigating
officer was not anyway personally interested to get accused convicted .
2015 CRI. L. J. 1442 (SC)
VINOD KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB.
Criminal Appeal No. - 554 of 2012.1
(8) 156- Investigating officer not obliged to anticipate all possible defences and
investigate in that angle. Any omission on the part of investigating officer
cannot go against the prosecution . Acts or omission of investigating officer
should not be taken in favour of accused as it would amount to placing a
premium upon such a omission .
2015 CRI. L. J. 4021
V. K. MISHRA & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND.
(9) 156- perfunctory investigation, any irregularity or even illegality in course of
Investigation cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case .

2006 (3) PLJR 253. ( Patna HC)
OF BIHAR.
Criminal Appeal Nos. - 460,560 of 2000 (DB).
(10) 156- Magistrate sending the matter for police investigation under section
156 (3 ) without proper application of judicial mind. Complaint petition was file
within two days of occurrence, it cannot be presumed that provisions of section
154 (3) was complied with application under section 154 (1 ) and 154 (3) have
to be in existence while filing petition for exercising power under section 156
(3). Power under section 156 (3) cannot be exercised by the Magistrate in a
routine manner rather it requires application of judicial mind .
2019 (4) PLJR 1096. (Patna HC)
DARSHANA SINGH & ANR. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
Criminal Misc. No. - 228 of 2018.
Relied upon- 2015 (3) PLJR (SC) 78.
(11) 156- If a complaint is filed before an Executive Magistrate regarding an
issue over which has administrative jurisdiction, and he proceeds to hold an
administrative enquiry, he may lodge an FIR himself in the matter , but an
Executive Magistrate has no power to direct the police to register an FIR on the
basis of private complaint filed before him .
(2019) 1 SCC (CRI.) 737 ; (2019) 2 SCC 344.
NAMAN SINGH @ NAMAN PRATAP SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH & OTHERS.
Criminal appeal no. - 1620 of 2018.
(12) 156- Magistrate at stage of passing order under section 156 (3 ) does not
take cognizance. Order to police to investigate case also be passed by treating
complaint as application. Even after taking cognizance on basis of complaint
such order can be passed.
2013 CRI. L. J. 776 (SC).

(2) 156- in case of kidnapping of boy for ransom persons soon to be accounted
in the charge sheet but no sincere efforts where being taken by the police to
address them know any step has been taken to recover the boy job of police is
not over on conclusion of Investigation of the police continues till or accused
persons are brought before the court and property is stolen, persons kidnapped
absconded are recovered where filing of chargesheet does not absolve of its
statutory obligation.
2008 (1) BBCJ V -411 (Patna HC)
MOST. REENA AGRAWAL @ REENA KUMARI @ REENA DEVI VS. STATE OF
BIHAR.
Cr. W. J. C. No. -11 of 2006.
(3) 156- criminal trial any is regularity even and illegality during investigation
should not be treated as a ground to reject the prosecution case .
2004 (1) BCCR (PHC) 165. (Patna HC)
KARA MANJHI @ SURENDRA MANJHI VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
(4) 156- Criminal trial - Defective or illegal investigation. PWs had carried
deceased with bleeding wounds, so their clothes would have been stained with
blood. Investigating Officer stated that PW 5s clothes has no blood stains.
Defence thus contended that statement of PW 5 becomes doubtfull for this
reason. Investigating Officer out to have ceased PW 5s clothes. Because he has
failed to do so, obviously to cover up his inefficiency, he came up with story that
there were no blood stains on cloth of PW 5 . Court must not get influenced by
remissness or inefficiency of investigating agency and acquit the accused if core
of prosecution case is undented and established .
(2012) 3 SCC (CRI) 761 ; (2012) 8 SCC 34.
KALU @ AMIT With JOGINDER AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF HARYANA.
Criminal Appeal No. -1467 of 2007 with 868 of 2008.
157. Procedure for investigation. -

(1 ) 157 (2)- Informant who sets machinery of Investigation into motion by filing
FIR, must know what is the result of Investigation . Law requires that action
taken by officer in charge of a police station on FIR should be communicated to

informant , even report forwarded by Such an officer to Magistrate under
sub-section (2 ) (1) of the section 173 of the Code , should also be supplied to
informant . When, on a consideration of report made by officer in charge of a
police station under sub-section (2 ) (1) of section 173 Magistrate is not inclined
to take cognizance of offence and issue process. Informant must be given
opportunity of being heard so that he can made his submissions to persuade
Magistrate to take cognizance of offence and issue process.
(i) 2016 (3) BBCJ V - 197.
KEDAR TURHA VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
C. W. J. C NO. - 572 of 2016.
(ii) 2017 (2) BBCJ IV - 404 (SC).
RAM PYARI VS. STATE OF HARYANA.
Writ Petition (Crl.) - 159 of 2015.
NOTE:- Section 157 (2) of the Code says " 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 sub-section, 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. "
Also see section 173 (2) (ii) of the Code.
161. Examination of witnesses by police. -

(1 ) 161- Consistent and reliable evidence of eyewitnesses , proving that
accused had given fital blow on chest of diseases. Accused cannot be
acquitted,merely because witnesses not specifically stating in statements
recorded by police under section 161 , about which blow was given by which
accused.
1999 Cri. L. J. 463 (SC).
AMRIK SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB.
(2 ) 161- Investigating officer not recording statement of informant, feeling it
unnecessary in view of FIR to repeat same version in case diary . Non

availability of a statement of that witness under section 161 would not cause
prejudice to defence.
1997 Cri. L. J. 766 (SC)
(3) 161- Neither prosecution witness nor investigating officer confronted with
statement and question about the contradiction in a statement to the police
under section 161 of the code. Thus, statement of prosecution witness under
section 161 of the Code, cannot be looked into to discredit testimony of
prosecution witness and prosecution version
2015 CRI. L. J. 4021 (SC).
V. K. MISHRA VS. STATE
(4) 161- Non availability of the statements of a witness under section 161 of
the Code, would not cause prejudice to the difference .
2004 (2) BCCR 318 ; 2004 (2) PCCR 136
AMERIKA RAI & OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Relief on. - AIR 1997 SC 1528.
(5) 161- The statement recorded by a police officer under section 161 of the
code, even though is a previous statement for the purpose of section 145 of the
Evidence Act , such statement can be used for the purpose of establishing a
contradiction or impeaching the credit of the witness only in the manner
provided for section 162 of the Code.
1999 CRI. L. J. 3491. (SC)
STATE OF KERALA VS. BABU AND OTHERS.
162. Statements to police not to be signed - use of statements

in evidence. -
(1 ) 162- Statement recorded during inquest proceedings cannot be treated as
substantive evidence . FIR under no circumstances is substantive piece of
evidence.
III (1997) CCR 9 (SC)

(2) 162- Where a person has made dying declaration before magistrate and he
survives, his declaration can be used to corporate or contradict his testimony .
1999 CRI. L. J. 2889 (SC).
RAMPRASAD
With
VINIT
With
GOPAL MAHARAJ
And
RAJU HIRAMAN GAHLOT AND ANOTHER

VS.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
Criminal Appeal Nos. -592 of 1994, 1187 of 1995, 507 of 1993, 335 of 1999.
(3) 162- Seizure memos prepared by investigating officer, obtaining signature
of accused on seizure memo , would not vitiate the testimony of accused in
court. Prohibition in section 162 (1) of the Code is not applicable to
proceedings made under section 27 of Evidence Act . If any investigating officer
ignorant of section 162 (1) of the Code secures the signature of the person
concerned in the statement . It does not mean that the witnesses testimony in
the court would thereby become contaminated or vitiated .
1999 CRI. L. J. 2588 (SC)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. TEJA RAM AND OTHERS.
(4) 162- Mother of accused stated before police that her son ( the accused )
had told her that he had killed deceased. But, when she was confronted with
this statement in Court she resiled from her earlier statement and was
declared hostile. Her subsequent denial in Court is not believable because she
obviously had after thoughts and wanted to save her son (the accused ) from
punishment . Statement to police can be taken into consideration in view of
proviso to Section 162 (1) of the Code. It is duty of court to separate grain from
chaff . Maxim "falsus in UNO falsus in Omnibus" has no application in India .

2011 CRI. L. J. 2903 (SC).
BHAGWAN DAS VS. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI.
(5) 162- On a reading of section 162 of the Code bearing in mind the object of
the said section and section 145 of the Evidence Act, it is clear that an accused
in a criminal trial has the right to make use of the previous statements of a
witness including the statements recorded by the investigating agency during
the course of an investigation for the purpose of establishing a contradiction in
the the evidence of a witness or to discredit the witness.
1999 CRI. L. J. 3491. (SC)
STATE OF KERALA VS. BABU AND OTHERS.
164.Recording of confession and statements. -

(1 ) 164- when the witness themselves appear and pray for recording his
statement, the Magistrate must not readily accept the same rather should
cautiously examine the position and circumstances, i. e. , degree of caution
should be more in such cases for assessing motive behind the request of
witness. Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, section 161 and 164 read with
section 145 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. There is no unfettered duty on the
Magistrate that he must record the statement of the witness under section 164,
but discretion must be applied on facts and circumstances of each case.
Magistrate can either accept or reject petition of alleged eye witness for having
his statement recorded under section 164, but cannot direct that the witness be
produced through the Investigating Officer.
1994 (2) PLJR 677
(2 ) 164- Omission to obtain signature of accused at the end of the confession,
would not make it inadmissible as it is curable defect under section 463 of
Code.
1999 Cri. L. J 3124 (SC)
STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CBI/SIT VS.
NALINI AND OTHERS.
WITH

T. SUTHENTHIRARAJA @ SANTHAN AND OTHERS
WITH
P. RAVICHANDRAN AND OTHERS

WITH
ROBERT PAYAS AND OTHERS

WITH
S. SHANMUGAVADIVELU AND OTHERS

WITH
S. NALINI AND OTHERS

VS.
STATE BY DSP, CBI, SIT. CHENNAI
Death Reference No. -1 of 1998. With Criminal Appeal No. -321 , 323, 324, 325
of 1998.
(3 ) 164- Merely because confession was recorded a day or so before the police
officer remand was to expire, would not make the confession involuntarily.
1999 Cri. L. J 3124 (SC)
STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CBI/SIT VS.
NALINI AND OTHERS.
Death Reference No. -1 of 1998.
(4 ) 164- Section 164 of the Code does not empowers magistrate to record
statement of witness on his request even though not asked for, by investigating
agency.
1999 CRI. L. J 3976 (SC)
YOGENDRA NAHAK AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS.
(5 ) 164- Statements under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, can be used
only for the purpose of contradiction. And the statement under section 164
CR.P.C can be used for both corroboration and contradiction. In a case where
Magistrate has to perform duty of recording a statement under section 164
CR.P.C , he is under obligation to elicit all information which the witness wishes

to disclose. Message should ask witness explanatory questions and obtain all
possible information in relation to the case. Statement recorded under section
164 Cr.P.C can be relied upon for the purpose of corroborating, statements
made by witnesses in committal court or even to contradict the same. As
defence had no opportunity to cross examine witness, whose statements are
recorded under section 164 CR.P.C, such statements cannot be treated as
substantive evidence.
2013 (2 ) BBCJ IV 355
R. SHAJI VS. STATE OF KERALA
(6) 164- If a person survives after making a dying declaration. Such declaration
if made before Magistrate, can be used to corroborate or contradict his
testimony.
1999 CRI. L. J. 2889. (SC)
RAMPRASAD
With
VINIT
With
GOPAL MAHARAJ
And

VS.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Criminal Appeal No. -592 of 1994; 1187 of 1995; 507 of 1993; and 335 of 1999.
(7) 164- Fact that Magistrate belonging to distinct place was asked to record
confession in preference to Magistrate at near place, is not a ground to doubt
voluntariness of confession. Further non explanation by investigation officer
that, how he knew that accused was willing to make confession to him, is of no
consequence.
2000 CRI. L. J. 2301 (SC)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DAMU GOPINATH SINDE & OTHERS.

Criminal Appeal Nos. -992-993 of 1999.
167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in

twenty-four hours. -
(1 ) 167- For the offence under section 304 B of the IPC maximum punishment is
up to life imprisonment . Statutory period will be 90 days and not 60 days ,
hence the accused is not entitled to be released on bail on expiry of 60 days.
2005 CRI. L. J 3063 ( Jharkhand H. C)
KAMALA DEVI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND.
(2) 167- Accused can be detained up to period of 90 days under section 167 (2)
of Code, for offence under section 386 of IPC .
2001 Cri. L. J 2941 (SC)
RAJEEV CHAUDHRY VS. STATE OF (NCT) OF DELHI.
(3) 167- Maximum punishment for offence committed by accused under
section 386 of IPC is "up to 10 years" and not for term "not less than 10 years".
Period of detention permissible under section 167 (2) (I) of Code would be 60
days and not 90 days.
2001 CRI. L. J. 1352 (Patna H C).
DILIP OJHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal Mise. No. 8332 of 2000 (Patna H C)
(4) 167- Direction for Police remand for further period of seven days after
expiry of first fifteen days period is invalid .
2001 CRI. L. J. 2942 (SC)
BUDH SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB.
(5) 167- Police remand can be made only during first 15 days of arrest, after
that period Magistrate cannot order Police remand.
2010 Cri. L. J. 3849 (SC)

(6) 167- Entitlement to statutory bail , ends once charge-sheet is filed within
stipulated time . Whether cognizance is taken or not is immaterial . Failure to
prosecute accused for want of sanction, does not entitle accused to get
statutory bill once charge-sheet is filed in time .
2013 CRI. L. J 1625 (SC)
SURESH KUMAR BHIKAMCHAND JAIN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
(7) 167- Right of statutory bail extinguishes only if charge-sheet is filed before
application for statutory bail is made. Filing of charge-sheet during pendency of
application for statutory bail does not affect right of accused to bail.
2013 CRI. L. J. 200 (SC)
SAYED MOHD. AHMAD KAZMI VS. STATE, GNCTD & ORS.
(8) 167- Bail order was passed on 23rd February 2011. But before his bail bond
could have been filed, the police file the charg-esheet, the indefeasible right
that had occurred to get bail under section 167 of the Code gets extinguished
and, as such, when the right of bail which was granted to the petitioner vide
order dated 23rd, Feb, 2011 gets automatically extinguished .
DEVENDRA SAHANI @ DEVENDRA MALLAH VS. HoonSTATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 9426 of 2011 (Patna H C)
(9) 167- Validity of detention under illegal remand has to be judged on the day
when writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution is taken up for final
adjudication. Even if there is any invalidity in order of remand passed earlier,
accused is not entitled to writ of Habeas Corpus today.
2015 (4) BBCJ V- 522.
BIRENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Cri. WJC No. 802 of 2015.
(10) 167- Charge -sheet filed on the same day on which date the application for
"compulsive bail" filed . Petitioner is not entitled to compulsive bail.
2016 BBCJ (1) V - 605.
UPENDRA YADAV @ MUNSHI YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Cri. W. J. C. No. - 79 of 2016.

(11) 167- Ordinarily the indefeasible right accruing to the accused will not
survive or remain inforceable on the charge-sheet being file. But if the
indefeasible right has been availed of prior to filing of charge-sheet then the
said right will survive or remain enforceable even upon filing of the charge-
sheet. In the instant case, after expiry of the statutory period of 90 days an
application for bail was filed under section 167 (2) of the Code and the learned
Magistrate granted bail. However the I. O of the case filed charge-sheet on the
same day after passing of the order of bail. Accordingly bail bond furnished by
the petitioner was rejected. Held , filing of charge-sheet would not extinguish
the indefeasible, right of the petitioner to be released on bail.
2016 (1) BBCJ V - 271.
VIKARMA PAL VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Cr. W. J. C. No. 835 of 2015.
(12) 167- While computing the period of 90 days the day on which the accused
was reminded to the judicial custody should be excluded and the day on which
challan is filed in the court should be included.
2015 (2) BBCJ IV - 93 (SC)
RAVI PRAKASH SINGH @ ARVIND SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
(13) 167- baill was granted to the accused under section 167 (2) of the code but
in the compliance of the order bail bond was not furnished by the accused on
that day. On next day Chalan (charge-sheet) was presented before the court.
Held claim of the accused petitioner under section 167 (2) of the Code, after the
presentation of the challan was just not sustainable.
KUNAL @ KUNAL KUMAR MAHTO VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND.
Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. - 7537 of 2016.
Case Referred- The decision rendered by a Constitutional Bench in Sanjay Dutt
Vs. State through C. B. I. Bombay (II), (1994) 5 SCC 410.
(14) 167- Petitioner exercised his indefeasible right of bail when investigation
could not be completed even much after expiry of the period of 90 days . On the
date of application for bail, the court below call for a report and in the second
sitting, the office reported that charge-sheet was submitted on the same day.
Once the petitioner exercised his right , subsequent filing of the charge- sheet

cannot take away the right of the petitioner when at the time of exercise of the
right of peremptory bail the petitioner was in illegal detention . Right of
accused would have been frustrated even after expiry of 90 days if the
chargesheet is filed before the exercise of the right by the accused to be
released on bail and also in the case the charge-sheet is filed before furnishing
of bail bond . Court below acted with illegality in adjoining the matter and
calling for a report , whether charge sheet has been submitted or not and to
frustrate the right of the petitioner, the police submitted charge-sheet after
exercise of right by the petitioner . Impugned order set aside , direction issued
to release the petitioner on bail.
2020 (1) PLJR 354 (Patna HC)
PREMCHANDRA PRASAD @ PREM CHAND PRASAD VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. - 43769 of 2019.
(15) 167- if accused is allowed bail under section 167 (2) of the code. Same will
not extinguish as a result of subsequent filing of chargesheet.
2002 CRI. L. J. 24. (Bombay HC)
REHEMANKHA KALUKHA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
(16) 167- Application by accused after expiry of period of 90 days for submitting
charge-sheet . Charge-sheet submitted there after by prosecution on the same
day of application for bail by accused . Fact that charge- sheet was submitted
subsequent to application by accused for grant of bail . It would be manifest
that accused had already availed of right under section 167 (2) of the code. In
the circumstances accused entitled to be released on bail.
2002 CRI. L. J. 1067. (Patna HC)
DINESH YADAV AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS.
Criminal W. J. C No. -332 of 2001.
(17) 167- Accused was involved in offence under NDPS Act in two different
States. Earlier accused was arrested in one state and was granted bail by High
Court of that state but accused could not furnish the bond because of his
subsequent arrest in another State. Accused moved an application for bail
under section 167 (2 ) of the Code in subsequent case, as no charge sheet was
submitted in stipulated period of 90 days in subsequent case. But the

application was rejected on the ground that he was never produced before the
court after the formal arrest in subsequent case therefore question of
completion of Investigation within a period of 90 days does not arise. Held, his
arrest in another State becomes otiose, because the accused was not produced
before the nearest magistrate in connection with subsequent arrest . And
directed to be released from custody on executing Bond pursuant to the order
of High Court in earlier case. Further held that nothing shall prejudice the
power of Police to arrest the accused in accordance with law.
1999 CRI. L. J. 2095. (SC)
MANOJ VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(18) 167- Section 43-D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 says:
"43-D. Modified application of certain provisions of the code. - (1 )
(2) Section 167 of the code Shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence
punishable under this Act subject to modification that in sub-section (2) -
(b) after the proviso, the following provisos shall be inserted, namely-
' Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation
within the set period of 90 days, the court may if it is satisfied with the report of
the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the
specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the set period of 90
days, extend the said period up to 180 days.
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 472 ; (2019) 5 SCC 178
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 🆚 SURENDRA PUNDLIK GADLING.
(19) 167- Remand order passed by Jurisdictional magistrate In connection with
certain offence under investigation. No Writ of habeas corpus could be issued in
such cases.
(2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 386 ; (2018) 9 SCC 745.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 🆚 TASNEEM RIZWAN SIDDIQUEE.
Criminal Appeal No. 1124 of 2018.
____________________________

Author's blog
(18) 167- A accused was granted bail on the merit of the case with a condition
that, the bail Bond will be accepted after the submission of the charge-sheet.
But the charge sheet was not submitted within the stipulated period of 90 days.
An application was moved on behalf of accused under section 167 (2) of the
code. It's purely the Author's view that, the accused is entitled for statutory bill
under section 167 (2) of the Code. As the right provided under the section
cannot be curtailed by the condition imposed in previous bail order granted
on merit (Author's view)
____________________________
170. Cases to be sent to Magistrate when evidence is

sufficient. -
(1 ) 170- Section 170 (2) requires production of witness by officer- in- charge of
the police station by which a case could have been investigated into, as law
presupposes that officer-in-charge had obtained bonds from persons
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to appear before the
magistrate (which could mean Court of law) for supporting the charge.
2011 (1) PLJR 1061 (Patna HC)
SONALAL SAHNI @ SONA SAHNI VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. -41416 of 2010. (Patna HC)
(2) 170- After investigation is over, if the investigating officer arrives at the
conclusion that the cause of action for lodging the FIR has not arisen within his
territorial jurisdiction, then he is required to submit a report accordingly under
section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to forward the keys to the
magistrate empower to forward the case to the Magistrate empowered to take
cognizance of the offence.
(Para-8 of judgement)
If the Investigating officer arrives at the conclusion that the crime was
not connected within the Territorial jurisdiction of the police station, then FIR
can be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in
which crime is committed.
(Para -10 of judgement)

1999 CRI. L. J. 4566 (SC).
SATVINDER KAUR VS. STATE (GOVERNMENT OF N. C. T DELHI) AND ANOTHER.
172. Diary of proceedings in investigation. -

(1 ) 172- trial court has unfettered power to call for and examine entries in
police diaries maintained by investigating officer . This is a very important
safeguard . If there is any inconsistency or contradiction arising in evidence,
Court can use entries made in diaries for the purpose of contradicting police
officer. Unfettered power conferred by statute under section 172 (2) of the
Code on the court to examine entries of police diary would not allow accused to
claim similar unfettered right to inspect case diary. Court trying case is best
Guardian of interest of Justice .
2017 (2) BBCJ IV- 417 (SC)
BALAKRAM VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND.
(2) 172(3) - Section 172(3) of Code specifically provides that neither the accused
nor is agent shall be entitled to call for case diary nor shall he or they be
entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the court. But if
they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory or if
the Court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer the
provisions of section 161 of the code or the provisions of section 145 of the
Evidence Act shall be complied with.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 509; (2019) 9 SCC 24.
P. CHIDAMBARAM 🆚 DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT.
173. Report of police officer on completion of Investigation. -

(1 ) 173- Non issuance of notice to the complainant, before accepting the final
report, vitiates the order , accepting final report .
III (1997) CCR 1 (S C) ; IV (1997) CCR 17 (S.C)
Also see - (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 269; (2019) 8 SCC 27

VISHNU KUMAR TIWAARI 🆚 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(2) 173- Public Prosecutor has no role to play in investigation . Investigating
officer cannot be directed to consult Public Prosecutor before filing report.
2000 CRI. L. J. 2453/
(3) 173- Failure on the part of investigating officer to seize the chairs present at
the place of occurrence during investigation , is mere a irregularity in
investigation and is not sufficient to discard the prosecution case. FIR is not an
encyclopaedia.
2007 (3) BBCJ V - 202.
KAILASH SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
(4) 173- To hold investigation in a cognizable offence is the statutory right of
the police . Once a cognizable offence is reported to the police and the
investigation is being carried out it would not be proper for the court to
interfere in any manner, unless there is any evidence that the investigation is
tented or biased. Role of court commences only after completion of the
investigation and submission of the report under section 173 (2 ) of the Code.
2016 (3) BBCJ V 258 (Patna H C)
BHAGMATI DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
(5) 173- Submission of report of Investigation under section 173 (8) of the code
by police, does not take away power of Magistrate to drop proceeding or to
direct further investigation, in spite of the fact that cognizance of the case has
been taken. Magistrate has jurisdiction to recall order taking cognizance and
drop proceedings.
[(1997) 1 BLJR 564]. (Patna HC)
DR. SHRAWAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. -18423 of 1996.
Followed- AIR 1979 S. C 1791
(6) 173- Magistrate has power to direct further investigation. Neither scheme
nor provision of Code bars exercise of such jurisdiction by Magistrate. However
no power exists in Magistrate to order re-investigation.

2013 CRI. L. J. 754 (S.C)
VINAY TYAGI VS. IRSHAD @ DEEPAK AND ORS.
(7) 173- Magistrate cannot reject the petition for re-investigation on the
ground that it will amount to reviewing the order. Magistrate can order further
investigation.
IV (1997) CCR 17 (S.C)
UPSC VS. S. PAPAIAH & OTHERS (S.C)
(8) 173- Power to conduct re- investigation does not lie in investigation agency,
once it has filed report under section 173 ( 2 ) of the Code in respect of offence.
2013 CRI. L. J. 754 (S.C)
VINAY TYAGI VS. IRSHAD @ DEEPAK AND ORS.
(9)173- Public prosecutor has locus standi to file petition before court seeking
order directing investigating officer to conduct further investigation.
2014 CRI. L. J. 4800 (Kerala H. C)
ABDUL LATHEAF & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KERALA.
Cri. Rev. Petn. No. - 1579 of 2012
Case referred - 2013 Cri. L. J. 754 ; 2001 Cri. L. J. 4190 ; 2000 Cri. L. J. 2453 ;
1999 Cri. L. J. 3661 ; 1997 Cri. L. J. 779.
(10) 173 (2) (ii) - Informant who sets machinery of Investigation into motion by
filing FIR, must know what is the result of Investigation . Law requires that
action taken by officer in charge of a police station on FIR should be
communicated to informant , even report forwarded by Such an officer to
Magistrate under sub-section (2 ) (1) of the section 173 of the Code , should
also be supplied to informant . When, on a consideration of report made by
officer in charge of a police station under sub-section (2 ) (1) of section 173
Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of offence and issue process.
Informant must be given opportunity of being heard so that he can made his
submissions to persuade Magistrate to take cognizance of offence and issue
process.
(i) 2016 (3) BBCJ V - 197.
KEDAR TURHA VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR.

C. W. J. C NO. - 572 of 2016.
(ii) 2017 (2) BBCJ IV - 404 (SC).
RAM PYARI VS. STATE OF HARYANA.
Writ Petition (Crl.) - 159 of 2015.
NOTE:- Section 173 (2) (ii) of Code says, -" The officer shall also communicate,
in such a manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action
taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the
Commission of the offence was first given".
Also see section 157 (2) of the Code.
(11) 173 (8) - Magistrate has no power to issue direction for further
Investigation soumoto or on prayer made by complaint / informant, once
cognizance has been taken/ process issued or accused has been discharged.
(2017) 2 SCC (CRI.) 331.
AMRUTBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL VS. SUMANBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL &
OTHERS.
(12) 173 (8) - once cognizance taken in the*case and accused is discharged by
magistrate he cannot suo motu order for the investigation and direct
investigating officer to submit report. Investigating officer is at liberty to file
application for further investigation under section 173 (8 ).
Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court and even
considering the relevant provisions of the CrPC, what is emerging is that after
the investigation is concluded and the report is forwarded by the police to the
Magistrate under section 173 (2) (i ) CrPC, the Magistrate may either: (1)
accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (2)
may disagree with the report and drop the proceedings, or (3) may direct
further investigation under section 156 (3 ) and required the police to make
further report. If the Magistrate disagrees with the report and drop the
proceedings, the information is required to be given an opportunity to submit a
protest application and there after, after giving an opportunity to the
informant, the Magistrate may take a further decision whether to drop the
proceeding against the accused or not. However, it is required to be noted that
all the aforesaid is required to be done at the Pre-cognizance state.

But, once the Magistrate takes cognizance and, considering the materials
on record submitted along with the report forwarded by the police under
section 173 (2) (i) CrPC, the Magistrate in exercise of the power under section
227/ section 239 CrPC discharges the accused there after, it will not be open for
the magistrate to suo motu order for further investigation. Such order after
discharging the accused can be said to the made at the post cognizance stage.
The power to order further investigation which may be available to the
Magistrate at the Pre-cognizance stage may not be available to the Magistrate
at the post- cognizance stage, more particularly, when the accused is
discharged by him. Once the order of discharge is passed, thereafter the
Magistrate has no jurisdiction to suo motu direct the investigating officer for
the future investigation and submit the report. However, at the same time,
considering the provisions of section 173 (8) CrPC, it is always open for the
investigating agency to file an application for further investigation and
thereafter to submit a fresh report and the court may, on the application
submitted by the investigating agency, permit further investigation and permit
the investigating officer to file a fresh report and the same may be considered
by the Magistrate thereafter in accordance with the law.
2019 CRI. L. J. 2787 (SC) ; (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 613 ; (2019) 5 SCC 542.
BIKASH RANJAN ROUT VS. STATE THROUGH THE SECRETARY (HOME) GOVT. OF
NCT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI.
Reversed - Criminal M. C. No. 3386 of 2013.
(13) 173- Plea that once the charge- sheet was submitted, police has no power
to call for any report from the FSL and such power was not exercised by
Investigation Officer but by another police officer. Held, section 173 (8 ) of the
Codes gives power to the officer- in -charge of a police station who may not be
the Investigation Officer of a particular case, that even after submission of the
charge- sheet he can collect further evidence in the matter . Therefore, calling
for a report from FSL by another police officer cannot be said to be without
jurisdiction .
2019 (3) PLJR 1106 (Patna HC)
AMIR LAL ROY VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

(14) 173- Whether the Magistrate can order further investigation after a police
report forwarded to him under section 173 . Magistrate's power under section
156 (3 ) is very wide to ensure that a "proper investigation" takes place in the
sense of a fair and just investigation by the police, which such Magistrate is to
supervise, article 21 of the Constitution mandates that all Powers necessary,
which may also be incidental or implied are available to the Magistrate to
ensure a proper investigation which, without doubt, would include the ordering
of further investigation after a report is received by him under section 173 (2) ,
and which power would continue to ensure in such Magistrate at all stages of
the criminal proceedings until the trial itself commences . As per definition of
Investigation under section 2 ( h) , the investigation referred to in section 156
(1) would, include all proceedings for collection of evidence conducted by a
police officer which would undoubtedly include proceedings by way of further
investigation under section 173 (8 ) as well . Thus, when section 156 (3 ) states
that a Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order "Such an
investigation" such Magistrate may also order further investigation under
section 173 (8) . "Investigation" in section 156 (3 ) would imbrace the entire
process which begins with the collection of evidence and continues until
charges are framed by the court, at which stage the trial can be said to have
begun . A criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken but only after
charges are framed. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be
exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each
case. Whether further investigation should and should not be ordered is with in
the discretion of the Magistrate who will exercise such description on the facts
of each case and in accordance with law.
2019 (4) PLJR 336 (SC).
VINUBHAI HARIBHAI MALAVIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT.
Criminal appeal no. - 478 - 479 of 2017.
(15) 173- On the completion of the investigation in a criminal case, the
prosecuting agency should apply its independent mind, and require all
shortcomings to be rectified, if necessary by requiring further investigation.
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. KISHANBHAI ETC.
(16) 173- Re-investigation can be ordered by Magistrate without affording
opportunity of hearing to accused even after receipt of first report of police .

AIR 1999 S C 2332 ; 1999 CRI. L. J. 3661 (S.C)
SRI BHAGWAN SAMARDHA SREEPADA VALLABHA VENKATA VISHWANDADHA
MAHARAJ VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS.
(17) 173(8) - Held, neither Magistrate suo motu, nor on an application filed by
Complainant/informant, can direct further investigation once charges are
framed and cognizance taken. Further investigation can be ordered only on
request of investigating agency and that too in circumstances warranting
further investigation on detection of material evidence only to secure fair
investigation and trial.
(2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 594 ; (2018) 14 SCC 298.
ATHUL RAO 🆚 STATE OF KARNATAKA.
(18)173- In a case where there is a theft of sand and gravels from the
🆚
2014 CRI. L. J. 4854 (SC)
with

🆚
Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 2011 with 2105,2108-2112, 2107 & 2106 of
2013.
174. Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc. -

(1) 174- Manner in which incident took place or name of the accused, need not
be mentioned in inquest report.
2003 CRI. L. J. 1282 (SC)
(2) 174- Inquest report is prepared by investigating officer to find out prima
facie the nature of injuries and the possible weapon used in causing those
injuries as also the possible cause of death. It is not necessary even for the eye
witnesses to mention the name of assailants while describing the cause of
death in the Inquest Report. Inquest report cannot be treated as substantive
evidence but may be utilised for contradicting the witness of inquest.
2000 CRI. L. J. 3457 (SC)
SURESH RAI & OTHERS 🆚 STATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal Appeal No. -740 of 1998./
Chapter XIII
Jurisdiction of the criminal courts in enquiries and triatrials

177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. -
(1 ) 177- FIR cannot be quashed on grounds, that police station did not have
territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence. Police officer cannot refuse to
record FIR and investigate it for want of territorial jurisdiction.
1999 CRI. L. J. 4566 (SC).
(2) 177- Section 142 (2) (a) amendment in Negotiable Instrument Act, vests
jurisdiction for initiating proceedings for offence under section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act, in territorial jurisdiction of Court , where cheque is
delivered for collection through an account of branch of bank where payee or
holder in due course maintains an account.
2015 (4) BBCJ IV- 459 (SC)
M/S BRIDGE STONE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. INDRERPAL SINGH.
Cr. Appeal Nos. - 1557, 1562, 1563 with 1564 of 2015 (SC).
1999 Cri. L. J 2568 (SC)
178. Place of inquiry or trial. -

(1 ) 178- It is difficult to fix up any particular locality as place of occurance for
offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (26 of 1881).
1999 CRI. L. J. 4606 (SC).
(2) 178- Offence under section 498 -A of IPC is a continuing offence. Place
where the wife is force to take shelter, has jurisdiction to try the offence under
section 498 -A of IPC.
2003 CRI. L. J. 3618 (Gauhati HC).
BINA DEY & OTHERS VS. PRATIBHA
2015 (3) BBCJ V 244
Case Referred- 2000 Cri. L. J. 3762 (Delhi), Mohan Lal Vs. State ; 1999 Cri. L. J.
4566 & AIR 1999 SC 3596, Satvinder kaur Vs. State of Delhi ; 1998 Cri. L. J. 554
(Rajasthan HC), Jagdish Vs. State of Rajasthan; 1988 Cri. L. J. 1581 (Allahabad
HC), Vijay Ratan Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.
(3) 178- All alleged act as per complaint relating to offence under section 498
-A of IPC took place in a state of Punjab. Complaint filed in Court in state of
Rajasthan, where complainant was residing with her matrimonial relations. No
cause of action arose in Rajasthan. Magistrate at that place had no jurisdiction
to deal with said matter.
2008 CRI. L. J. 3494 (SC).

BHURA RAM & ORS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN.
Reversed- 2004 (2) CRI. L. J. 1495
(4) 178- The case registered at Hajipur (vaishali) under section 498 -A of IPC
and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and cognizance taken for the said
offence by Judicial Magistrate first class at Vaishali. Demand of dowry
followed by cruelty is alleged to have been at Saran. However , the FIR contains
the allegation that Accused persons gave threatening at the door of the
complainant. As such , even part of cause of action arose in the district of
vaishali, the Magistrate at Vaishali has jurisdiction.
2010 (4) BBCJ V-27 (Patna HC)
DEO PATI DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
(5) 178- Territorial jurisdiction of court in the offices of 498 -A of IPC, is where
offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another or where
offence is continuing and continues to be committed in more than one local
area, Court having jurisdiction over any of such areas is competent to try the
offence.
2011 (3) BLJ S. C -17.
SUNITA KUMARI KASHYAP VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
(6) 178- Court at place of residence of holder of the cheque, where cheque is
deposited, has teritorial jurisdiction to try complaint filed under station 138 of
the Negotiable Instrument Act (26 of 1881).
2013 CRI. L. J. 3771 (SC).
NISHANT AGGARWAL VS. KAILASH KUMAR SHARMA.
(7) 178- Dishonour of cheque would be localised at place where drawee bank is
situated. Presentation of cheque at any place cannot confer jurisdiction upon
court within whose teritorial limits such presentation may have taken place .
Unilateral act of complainant in presenting a cheque at a place of his choice or
issuing a notice for payment of dishonoured amount cannot arm complainant
with power to chose place of trial.
2014 (4) BBCJ IV 72 (SC).
DASHRATH RUPSINGH RATHOD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.

179. Offence triable where act is done or consequences
ensues. -
(1 ) 179- Accused, husband and in-laws harassing complainant, wife soon after
marriage in relation to demand of dowry and also treating her with cruelty.
Wife forced to leave her matrimonial home at Mumbai . Complainant returning
back to her paternal home in Shillong and filing complaint. consequences of
offence committed at Mumbai, occurring at Shillong Court at Shillong, have
territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
2018 CRI. L. J. 646. (Meghalaya HC).
SMTI. LEENA NARWANI VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA.
Cri. Revn. P. No. - 10 of 2015
(2) 179- Where a woman is forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of
cruelty committed by husband or his relatives to take shelter with the parents
or other family members and where no overt act of cruelty or harassment is
alleged to have been committed by husband at parental home where wife had
taken shelter. Consequences of cruelty committed at the matrimonial home
resulted in respected offences being committed at parental home and this kind
of offence contemplated under section 179 of the Code . As such counts at the
place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the
matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or
his relatives , would dependent on actual situation, also have jurisdiction to
entertain a complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 498 A of
the IPC.
2019 (2) PLJR (SC) 255 ; (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 558 ; (2019) 5 SCC 384.
RUPALI DEVI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
Criminal appeal nos. 71 of 2012 with 619,620,621,622 and 623 of 2019.
(3) 179- Offence of transporting smuggled gold. Gold passing through places a,
b, c and then to place d. Held Court at place c would also have jurisdiction to try
the offence.
1999 CRI. L. J. 455 (SC)
HARBANS LAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.

Chapter XIV
Conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings
190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates. -
(1 ) 190- criminal proceeding initiated on complaint, does not abate on the
death of the complainant. Heir of the deceased complainant, allowed to
continue the prosecution by proceeding with complaint.
Criminal breach of trust and cheating . Pending of civil proceeding
filed by complainant. Jurisdiction of criminal court is not ousted. Both the
proceeding being separate and independent does not abate or defeat the
other.
2007 (4) BBCJ IV-128 (SC)
SHAIKH JAMALUDDIN SYED AND ANOTHER VS. SHAIKH SAHEBLAL MARDAN
(DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHER.
(2 ) 190- Magistrate can ignore conclusion arrived at by Investigation Officer
and independently apply his mind to facts . Magistrate after accepting negative
final report submitted by police can take action on the basis of protest petition
filed by complainant.
2014 (4) BBCJ IV 340 (SC)
RAKESH & ANR. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
Cri. Appeal No. 1412 of 2014.
(3 ) 190- If a case is registered by police based on FIR, Magistrate cannot
exclude or include any section in to charge sheet after investigation has been
completed and chargesheet has been submitted by police.
(2014) ACR 40 (SC)
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. GIRISH RADHAKRISHNAN VARDE.
(4 ) 190- Complaint filed by Deputy Chief Controller of imports and Exports in
discharge of his official duties. Order of cognizance without examination of
complainant is proper.

2003 Cri. L. J 1698 (SC)
(5) 190- Order taking cognizance. plea by petitioner that there was no
transaction between him and Co -accused at relevant time. It can be said to be
his evidence and cannot be looked at the stage of taking cognizance of offence,
but at the time of trial.
2005 CRI. L. J 2818. (Jharkhand H C)
(6) 190- Magistrate is not bound to accept final report filed by investigating
agency . He can take cognizance and issue process against person though
exonerated by investigating agency.
2013 CRI. L. J 2977 (SC)
MOTI LAL SONGARA VS. PREM PRAKASH @ PAPPU & ANR.
(7) 190- Order taking cognizance got set aside by suppressing fact that charges
had been framed against Accused. Accused cannot be allowed to take
advantage of such orders setting aside cognizance and get order framing
charge quashed.
2013 CRI. L. J 2977 (SC)
MOTI LAL SONGARA VS. PREM PRAKASH @ PAPPU & ANR.
(8) 190- Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence even he has no territorial
jurisdiction to try it.
1999 CRI. L. J. 4325 (SC)
TRISUNS CHEMICAL INDUSTRY VS. RAJESH AGARWAL AND OTHERS.
(9) 190(1) (b) - When the Magistrate proceeds to take action by way of
cognizance by disagreeing with the conclusion arrived at in the police report
(final report), he would be taking cognizance on the basis of the police report
under section 190 (1) (b), if there is prima facie material available in the case
diary and not on complaint under section 190(1) (a), and therefore in such
cases the question of examining the complainant or his witnesses under section
200,202 of the code would not arise.(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 269; (2019) 8 SCC 27.
VISHNU KUMAR TIWARI 🆚 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.

(10) 190- In a case where there is a theft of sand and gravels from the
🆚
2014 CRI. L. J. 4854 (SC)
with
🆚
Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 2011 with 2105,2108-2112, 2107 & 2106
(11)1 73-Submission of report of Investigation under section 173 (8) of the code
by police, does not take away power of Magistrate to drop proceeding or to
direct further investigation, in spite of the fact that cognizance of the case has
been taken. Magistrate has jurisdiction to recall order taking cognizance and
drop proceedings.
[(1997) 1 BLJR 564]. (Patna HC)
DR. SHRAWAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Followed- AIR 1979 S. C 1791. 193-Making over of cases to

magistrates. -

(1 ) Special Court specified under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
prevention of Atrocities Act, cannot take cognizance of any offence without
case being committed to that Court .
2000 CRI. L. J. 819 (SC)
GANGULA ASHOK AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH.
195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public

servants , for offences against public justice and for offences
relating to documents given in evidence. -
(1 ) 195- Accused allegedly filing forged vakalatnama by mentioning wrong
date and place . Nothing on record to show wrongful gain of accused by playing
fraud . Since accused admitted their signature in vakalatnama, opinion of
handwriting expert that signature not found to be of accused does not stand on
higher footing. Mere incorrect statement in vakalatnama does not amount to
create a false document.
2019 CRI. L. J. 2896 (SC)
SASIKALA PUSHPA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU.
Criminal appeal no. - 855 to 859 of 2019.
(2) 195- A crime report was registered under section 417,506 (i ) of IPC on the
complaint of a Lady ,to the effect that, accused enticed her of marrying and
had sexual interaction several times with her, on account of which she b ecame
pregnant and when she asked accused to marry her. He threatened the
complainant of killing her if she disclosed the above facts to anybody.
Sub-inspector of Police filed charge-sheet under section 417, 506 (I) of
IPC . In spite of that the lady was not found pregnant in medical examination
held just after six days of registration of FIR during investigation.
After trial accused was acquitted.
After acquittal, accused filed a complaint against the Investigating
Officer under section 193 of the IPC for deliberately giving false evidence in the
Court as against the accused. The complaint dismissed upto High Court.

It was held by honorable apex court that section 195 (1) and section
340 of CR.P.C authorises the exercise of the power conferred under section 195
(1) by any other Court to which the court in respect of which the offences
committed is subordinate to. And the matter is limited to the high court for
further appropriate course of action to initiate proceeding against the the sub
-inspector (I.O) on the basis of the complaint of the accused.
PERUMAL VS. JANKI
Criminal Appeal No. -169 of 2014. (S.C)
(3) 195 (1) (b) (ii) - Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of the code is not applicable to a case
where forgery of the document was committed prior to the production of the
said document in Court.
1999 CRI. L. J. 1348. (Allahabad HC)
PARMA PANDEY AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER.
Criminal Miscellaneous Writ petition No. -4510 of 1998
Case Referred: AIR 1998 SC 1121, Sacchidanand Singh vs. State of Bihar.
(4 ) 195- Accused filing forged affidavits before Supreme Court. Supreme Court
cannot try and punish the accused. Order of Supreme Court convicting accused
and sentencing him to 3 months imprisonment, liable to be set aside for non
compliance with procedure under section 195 of the Code read with section 340
of the Code and also on account of want of original jurisdiction to try a criminal
offence under Section 193 of IPC.
2000 CRI. L. J. 755. (SC)
RANDHIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
Writ Petition (Cri.) No. -354 of 1997.
(5) 195- In cases of fabricating false records before court. Supreme Court itself
cannot assume criminal jurisdiction and Convict petitioner without trial.
Statutory procedure provided under section 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C out to be
followed.
2000 CRI. L. J. 388 (SC)
M. S. AHLAWAT VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Writ petition (Cri.) No. -353 of 2000.

(6) 195- compensation officer appointed under the Bihar Land Reforms Act
1950 is not a quote with in meaning of section 195 1 b of the code of criminal
procedure.
2000 CRI. L. J. 595. (SC)
KESHAB NARAYAN BANERJEE AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
(7) 195- Adjudication proceedings under section 7-A of Employees Provident
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 deemed to be judicial proceeding
within the meaning of Section 193 and 228 IPC and complaint under section
228 IPC is maintainable on obstraction and interference with such proceeding
by accused under section 195 (1) (b) (i) of the code.
Reiterated, if a person offers and insert to a public servant sitting in a
judicial proceeding, or causes interruption to him while he is so sitting at any
stage of judicial proceeding, the complaint has to proceed from public servant
himself, that is the effect of section 195 (1) (b) CrPC .
(2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 870 ; (2018) 15 SCC 240.
AMIT VASHISHTHA 🆚 SURESH & ANOTHER.
196. Prosecution for offences against the state and for

criminal conspiracy to commit such offence. -
(1 ) 196- Prosecution quashed for offence under section 295 A of IPC. when
sanction was not given in accordance with section 196 (1) of the Code.
1999 CRI. L. J. 470 (SC)
MANOJ RAI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH.
197. Prosecution of judges and public servants. -

(1 ) 197- issuance of process by magistrate for appearance of accused on being
satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding . Plea by accused before
Magistrate that offence was committed by him in discharge of official duty and
that Court had no power to take cognizance in absence of previous sanction of

Government. Accused can produce relevant material to establish necessary
ingredients for invoking sec. 197 (1).
1998 Cri. L. J 1242 (SC)
SURESH KUMAR BHIKHAMCHAND JAIN VS. PANDEY AJAY BHUSHAN AND
OTHERS.
(2 ) 197- Sanction for prosecution under section 6 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act (2) of 1947 . Accused cannot claim immunity on ground of want
of sanction under section 197 of the Code, if the accused ceased to be public
servant on date of taking cognizance by the court.
1999 CRI. L. J 3696 (SC)
STATE OF KERALA VS. V. PADMANABHAN NAIR.
(3 ) 197- Sanction against Government Servant for offence,charged under
section 406 read with section 120 B of the IPC. Sanction for prosecution is not
necessary under section 197 of Code.
1999 CRI. L. J 3696 (SC)
STATE OF KERALA VS. V. PADMANABHAN NAIR.
(4 ) 197- allegations related to an occurrence in which the petitioner was acting
in his official capacity and was entitled to protection under section 197 of the
code. On a perusal of complaint petition most of the allegations are
exaggerations and after thought. Sanction for prosecution by the State
Government under section 197 of the court is mandatory and applicable at the
stage of cognizance itself.
2010 (4) BBCJ V - 388 (Patna H. C)
PASHUPATI SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
(5 ) 197- previous sanction is required for prosecuting only such public servants
who could be removed by sanction of Government. Rule 825 clauses (a ) and
(b) of Jharkhand Police Manual confers, power on Inspector General of Police or
Deputy Inspector General of Police to pass orders for removal of police officers

up to rank of inspector. Before passing order of removal, Inspector General of
Police or Deputy Inspector General of Police need not obtain prior approval of
State Government. Inspector General of Police can dismiss a sub- inspector and
no sanction of State Government for prosecution of appellant was necessary
even if he had committed offences , while acting or purporting to act in
discharge of his official duty.
2013 (4) BBCJ IV 379 (SC)
(6 ) 197- In case under section 414, 34 IPC and 25 (1-B) A, 26 and 35 of Arms
Act. Sanction for prosecution under Arms Act can be obtained even after
cognizance. It was not mandatory that at initial stage sanction for prosecution
should be obtained.
2009 (3) PLJR 647 (Patna H. C) ; 2009 (3) BBCJ V 114
PRABHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR
Cr. Mise. No. 51962 of 2007.
RASHIDA JAMALUDDIN SYED VS. SHAIKH SAHEBLAL MARDAN (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS & OTHERS.
(7) 197- Lecturer of private college appointed by University for a specific work
Viz. to evaluate answer script, is not covered by definition of public servant
under section 21 of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) read with section 73 (4) of
Shivaji University Act (24 of 1974).
2002 CRI. L. J. 980 (SC).
DILAWAR BABU KURANE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
Criminal Appeal No. - 8 of 2002 (arising out of S. L. P. (Cri) No. 1452 of 1998).
(8) 197- no sanction, if work is not part of official duty.
PLJR 2017 (3) 117.
(9) 197- Fundamental criteria for protection under section 197 is that the
person who is being proceeded against for any alleged offence did so while
acting in discharge of the official duty . Allegation against accused, a principal
of school, is that he assaulted and abused opposite party who had gone to
make some query regarding admission in the school . It cannot be said to be an
act in discharge of official duty no nexus or connection between the offence

and discharge of official duty. Hence no sanction required under section 197 of
Code.
2019 (1) PLJR 954pp
ANIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
(10) 197- The circle officer alleged to have pushed and threw out the
complainant and called him by his cast name. Complainant cooperated the
prosecution case on Solomon affirmation and witnesses also supported the
prosecution case. An official is not expected to commit offence of assault and if
it is found that offence alleged is not under the cover of official duty.
2019 (2) PLJR 463 (Patna HC)
VIRENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR
(11) 197- Government of Bihar notification ( number 8348 dated 25-07-1996 ) .
Such protection has been extended to the police personnel by a a conscious
decision of the State Government since they have been considered to be
performing and exercising power of the state in relation to maintenance of
public order unless unimpeachable evidence on record to establish that action
of police personnel is indefeasible, malafide and vindictive, they cannot be
subjected to criminal prosecution without prior sanction , which a affords
necessary protection to them.
2019 (2) PLJR 608 (Patna HC)
NAWALESH PATHAK VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal Revision No. - 377 of 2015
(12) 197- Whether section is necessary or not may have to be determined from
stage to stage and the necessity could reveal itself in the course of progress of
the case. If at the initial stage, defence stablishes that the act alleged of was in
execution of the official duty, the complaint will have to be dismissed in
absence of order of sanction. There could be applicability of sanction at the
Inception of the case. Principles reiterated.
2019 (4) PLJR 1128 (Patna HC)

JITENDRA KUMAR @ JITENDRA SINGH SHYAM SUNDAR SINGH VS. STATE OF
BIHAR.
Relied upon- (2005) 9 SCC 631 ; (2001) 6 SCC 704.
(13) 197- The in-charge principal of a private and unaided college , occasionally
receiving aid from the government , governed and controlled by the University
Act , is a public servant within the meaning of the the Code. Sanction by vice-
chancellor a governing body, held to be competent authority to grant sanction .
The grant of sanction by a superior authority to that of the governing body
cannot be faulted with as invalid and suffering from an error in grant of
sanction leading to a failure of Justice .
2020 (1) PLJR 522 (Patna HC)
DR. SARYUG KUMAR VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CABINET VIGILANCE.
Criminal miscellaneous no. - 19391 of 2016.
(14) 197- Order of collector for collecting lease money from respondent.
Tahsildar served demand letter on respondent . But respondent failed to make
payment. Than warrant of attachment passed. Tahsildar seized and auctioned
scooter of respondent, when he was available with scooter in Tahsil office.
Held, act of tahsildar was Bonafide . Intention of prosecution by respondent
against Tahsildar for offence under section 379 IPC , not maintainable in
absence of sanction for his prosecution.
1999 CRI. L. J. 2105 (SC)
N. K. OGLE VS. SANWALDAS @ SANWALMAL AHUJA.
(15) 197- the question of necessity of sanction need not be considered by the
session judge if and when raised by the accused we have no doubt that the high
court should not have embarked upon the discussion regarding sanction at such
a premature stage, that too in the writ petition filed by the Samiti if the finding
of the high court is that no sanction is required such finding has to be treated
as bad mainly because that question has to be decided after taking into
account various considerations including the fact situation in each case.
1999 CRI. L. J. 3500. (SC)
A.K. SINGH AND OTHERS VS. UTTARAKHAND JAN MORCHA AND OTHERS.

Civil Appeal Nos. -3027-3041 of 1999.
(16) 197- if the offence alleged against a government officer have not some
Nexus or relation with the discharge of his official duties as a government
officer. No sanction to prosecute such officer under section 197 CrPC is
required for filing a complaint.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 234; (2019) 4 SCC 351.
DEVENDRA PRASAD SINGH 🆚 STATE OF BIHAR.
198. Prosecution for offences against marriage. -

(1 ) 198- providing prosedure under section 198 of the CrPC for filing complaint
in respect of offence of adultery under section 497 IPC is struck down as
unconstitutional along with section 497 of IPC.
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 84 ; (2019) 3 SCC 39.
JOSEPH SHINE 🆚 UNION OF INDIA.
Writ Petition (Cri) No. -194 of 2017.
199. Prosecution for defamation. -

(1) 199- Permission granted for presentation of the complaint other than the
person aggrieved, is valid.
III (1998) CCR 111.
Chapter XV
Complaints to Magistrates
200. Examination of complainant. -
(1 ) 200- If a protest petition fulfills the requirements of a complaint, the
magistrate may treat the protest petition as a complaint and deal with the
same as required under section 200 read with section 202 of the code.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 269; (2019) 8 SCC 27.
VISHNU KUMAR TIWARI 🆚 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.

201. Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take

cognizance of the case. -
202. Postponement of issue of process.

(1) 202- Under amended section 202 (1), it is obligatory upon the
Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond jurisdiction he
shall inquire into the case himself or direct the investigation to be made by a
police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for finding out whether or
not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The object of
the amendment is to ensure that persons residing at far off places are not
harassed by filing false complaints. holding of inquiry is mandatory.
2020(1) PLJR (SC) 109
BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED (IN 875); BIRLA BUILDING LIMITED (IN 877);
GOVIND PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. (IN 876) VS. ADVENTZ INVESTMENTS AND
HOLDINGS LIMITED & ORS.(IN 875); BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED (IN 876,
877)
Cr. Appeal No. 875, 877 & 876 of 2019 (SC)
(2 ) 202- In complaint case triabal by sessions court, examination of all
witnesses cited by complainant is not mandatory.
2010 Cri. L. J. 3827 (SC).
(3) 202- In a complaint case accused person wanted to bring to the notice of
the court about Institution of Police case earlier regarding the same offence.
But they were not permitted to do so on the ground, that accused persons have
no locus standi till cognizance is taken by the court. The Magistrate should have
taken notice of such limited submission in the interest of justice. Because such a
submission of relevant facts relate to an important matter relating to manner
of exercise of Jurisdiction. Otherwise also where certain relevant facts are
brought to the notice of a Court which can cure the ill effects of suppression of
vital facts, by one of the parties to them, the Court concerned will always have
jurisdiction to examine such facts and prevent play of any kind of fraud upon
the Court.
2002 (4) PLJR 829 (Patna H C)
MD. SHAMIM VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR
Cr. Revision No. 192 of 2002 ( Patna H C)
(4) 202(2) - Non compliance with proviso to sub-section (2) of section 202 of the
Code, does not vitiate trial. Unless prejudice caused to the accused is
established. Objection as to non-compliance raised at fag end of sessions trial.
Held, fresh enquiry under section 202 unnecessary.
2000 CRI. L. J. 930. (SC)
ROSY & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS.
203. Dismissal of complaint. -

(1 ) 203- Magistrate cannot examine evidence meticulously while dismissing
complaint under Section 203 of the Code. Order of dismissal on meticulous
examination of evidence is without jurisdiction.
[ (1997) 1 BLJR 779]
Case followed- 1980 BLJR 289 ; AIR 1980 SC 1780.
Chapter XVI
Commencement of proceedings before
magistrates
204. Issue of process. -
(1 ) 204- in a complaint case of forcibly removing paddy from land, filed under
section 379 of IPC . Non mentioning in complaint, about right of complainant to
hold and purchase land in question. No evidence showing that complainant is in
position of land in question. Held essential ingredients for offence under section
379 IPC is not made out.
1999 CRI. L. J. 762. (Patna HC)
MD. ENAMUDDIN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS.

(2) 204- Complaint alleging that accused made false imputations against
complainant by reporting to his superior officer that he had abused to Treasury
Officer in a drunken state. Complainant found guilty in a departmental enquiry
pursuant to accused's complaint. Held, allegations in complaint of accused
covered by exception 8 to Section 499 of IPC and no case of defamation is made
out .
1999 CRI. L. J. 1620.(SC)
RAJENDRA KUMAR SITARAM PANDE AND OTHERS VS. UTTAM AND ANOTHER
(3) 204- Magistrate need not pass detail order, while issuing process under
section 204 of the Code.
2000 CRI. L. J. 1799 (SC)
U. P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VS. M/S. MOHAN MEAKINS LTD. & OTHERS.
205. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of

accused. -
(1 ) 205- Initially warrant of arrest issued against accused, which was recorded
by magistrate as the accused appeared in court . Section 205 of code does not
debar consideration of exemption from appearance, merely because warrant
has been issued in first instance.
IV (1996) CCR 536.
(2 ) 205- Exemption from personal appearance under section 205 of the code,
to be granted to accused . If he does not challenge his identity and
representation by his lawyer and continuance of evidence in his absence not
objected by him.
III (1997) CCR 26.
(3) 205- While dealing with an application under section 205 the consideration
would be, whether any useful purpose would be served by requiring the
personal attendance of the the accused . Power is always there with the
Magistrate to ask the accused whose personal attendance has been dispensed
with under section 205 of the code, to remain physically present at any stage of
the trial, if the trial cannot proceed in absence of the accused. Further if the

pleader can plead guilty at the stage of statement on substance of acquisition
by the accusation by the court, no reason to say that substance of
accumulation cannot be explained to the pleader appearing on behalf of the
accused. instantly, accused already appeared through pleader, therefore there
is no hurdle in progress of trial in absence of physical presence of the petitioner.
2019 (4) PLJR 1058 (Patna HC)
THAKUR RAVINDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other

documents. -
(1 ) 207- Contents of the memory card / pen-drive being electronic record must
be regarded as a document .If the prosecution is relying on the same,
ordinarily, the accused must be given a cloned copy thereof to enable him/her
to present an effective defence during the trial .However, in cases involving
issues such as of privacy of the complainant/ witnesses or his/ her identity, the
court may be justified in providing only Inspection thereof to the accused and
his/her lawyer or expert for presenting effective defence during the trial.
2020 (1) PLJR (SC) 67
P. GOPALKRISHNAN @ DILEEP VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.
Cr. Appeal No. 1794 of 2019 (SC)
210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case

and police investigation in respect of the same offence.
(1 ) 210- Police case was instituted, but concealing this fact complainant case
was also filed regarding the same occurrence. Accused wanted to bring this
fact to the notice of the court, but they were not permitted and cognizance was
taken. Held, Magistrate was required to stay the proceeding of enquiry or trial
in the complaint case and should have proceeded further only after calling for
a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. The
course as required by the law had not been adopted as such cognizance was
quashed.
2002 (4) PLJR 829 (Patna H C)

MD. SHAMIM AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR
Cr. Revision No. 192 of 2002 ( Patna H C)
216. Court may alter charge. -

(1 ) 216- High Court allowed the appeal in respect of eight accused persons out
of eleven and acquitted them from the charges under section 148,302/149 of
the IPC. But dismissed the appeal in respect of the three accused persons and
convicted them under section 302/34 of IPC instead of section 302/149.
Liquor mind reading of section 216, 386 and 464 CrPC to dribble that
and alteration of charge where no prejudice is caused to the accused for the
prosecution is well within the power and the jurisdiction of the court including
the appellate court
Held, once eight co- accused were acquitted by the High Court
under Section 302/ 149 IPC by giving them the benefit of doubt and their
acquittal attained finality, the charge under section 149 IPC collapsed against
the three accused also because there could be no unlawful assembly consisting
of less than five accused person.
Further held that in absence of of any evidence against the three
accused to prove their common intention to murder, failed under section
302/34 and convicted accused persons under section 324 of IPC on the basis of
their individual participation.
Section 34 IPC does not, by itself, create any offence whereas it
has been held that section 149 IPC does.
In para 35 it has also been held that, 'A combined reading of
section 216, 386 and 464 CrPC would reveal that an alteration of charge where
no prejudice is caused to the accused or the prosecution is well within the
powers and the jurisdiction of the court including the appellate court. '
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 452 ; (2019) 5 SCC 127.
MALA SINGH & OTHERS 🆚 STATE OF HARYANA.
220. Trial for more than one offence. -

(1 ) 220- The provision of joint trial is enabling one . Court may or may not try
all offences together in one trial.
1999 CRI. L. J. 263 (SC)
MOHINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB.
221. Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed. -

(1 ) 221- Accused persons charged under section 304-B of IPC which related not
to administration of poison but to consumption of poison by deceased because
of demand of dowry and harassment. Ingredients of section 306 of IPC
established as death has occurred within seven years in abnormal
circumstances and deceased was meted out with mental cruelty. Even though
no charge has been framed under section 306 of the IPC , conviction of accused
persons under section 304- B of IPC can be altered to one under section 306 of
IPC.
2013 CRI. L. J. 3212 (SC)
GURNAIB SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB.
222. When office proved included in offence charged. -

(1 ) 222- Trial against six accused person for offence under section 396 of panel
code . Charge framed under section 396 only. Two accused acquitted.
Remaining four cannot be convicted under section 396, but can be convicted
under section 394 . Offence under section 394 being minor one accused can be
convicted though charge is not framed under section 394 . No prejudice can be
said to have been caused to accused .
2000 CRI. L. J. 1288 (Bombay HC)
Case Referred:- 1956 CRI. L. J. 291 ; AIR 1956 SC 116 .
(2) 222- when accused is charged with major offence and ingredients of such
offence not proved . Accused could be convicted for minor offence even though
he was not charged with .
2007 (1) BBCJ IV - 221 (SC)
TARKESWAR SAHU VS. STATE OF BIHAR.

Also see
2012 (4) BBCJ IV - 387 (SC)
BHIMANNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA.
Also see -
2000 CRI. L. J. 485 (SC)
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. TARA DUTT & ANOTHER.
223. What persons may be charged jointly. -

(1 ) 223- A FIR was registered for the murder of a person against two accused,
after investigation charge- sheet was submitted against only third accused who
was not named in FIR. And case was committed for trial. Being aggrieved by
the said charge- sheet Informant filed a complaint before Magistrate against
those two accused who were not change sheeted, and eventually that case was
also committed to the Court of session. After trial the accused in Police case
was acquitted and both the accused of Complaint case were convicted.
The first point sought to be considered is whether two sessions case
should have been tried separately or whether they should have been jointly
tried?
Held, the versions in both the cases are diametrically divergent, without
anything in common except that the murdered person was the same. In such
cases the most appropriate procedure to be followed by the sessions Judge
should be the separate trial as followed in this case. And advised that the Public
Prosecutor should be different in both the cases.
2000 CRI. L. J. 169 (SC)
BALBIR VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER.
CHAPTER XVIII
TRIAL BEFORE A COURT OF SESSION
225. Trial to be conducted by Public Prosecutor. -

226. Opening case for prosecution. -
(1 ) 226- Public Prosecutor should choose to prefer only those witnesses who
are not related to the victim and who would support the prosecution case, he
may drop even the non- related witness who would not support the
prosecution. Public Prosecutor can interview even the witnesses in advance to
know the stand to be taken by the witnesses. Public Prosecutor not bound to
examine all the witnesses.
2000 (2) BCCR (SC) 317.
HUKAM SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN.
227. Discharge. -
(1 ) 227- Court while considering the question of framing charge under section
227 has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of
finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the
accused. If the material placed before the court discloses Grave suspicion
against the accused . Probative value of the evidence brought on record cannot
be gone into at the stage of framing charges. Court is required to evaluate the
material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging
their from taken at their face value disclose the ingredients constituting the
alleged offence. At this stage, there cannot be a roring enquiry into the pros
and cons of the matter, the evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial is being
conducted.
2020 (1) PLJR (SC) 183
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (IN 2248) ; KANTA DEVI (IN 2247) VS. SHIV CHARAN
BANSAL & ORS. (IN 2248) ; STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. (IN 2247)
Cr. Appeal No. 2248 and 2247 of 2010 (SC)
(2 ) 227- Court is empowered to discharge accused, if two views are possible
and one of them gives rice to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave
suspicion. Whether trial will end in conviction or acquittal is not relevant at this
stage.
2010 CRI. L. J. 1427 (SC).

P. VIJAYAN VS. STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
(3) 227- At the stage of framing charge, trial court is not required to Marshal
materials on record but only has to Prima facie consider whether there is
sufficient material against accused .
2000 CRI. L. J. 944 (SC).
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. S. B. JOHARI & OTHERS.
Also see- Section 401
(4) 227- discharge application can be re - decided under certain circumstances.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 332; (2019) 7 SCC 701.
TARSEM LAL & ANOTHER 🆚 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.
SLP (Crl) No. -4444 of 2018.
228. Framing of charge. -

(1 ) 228- For framing of additional charge no separate hearing required . No
need to record detail reasons if there is ground for presuming that the accused
has committed an offence . Court is competent to frame charge for offence
even though not mentioned in charge sheet.
2014 CRI. L. J. 4192 (SC).
DINESH TIWARI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
Criminal Appeal No. 1365 of 2014. (SC)
(2) 228- Charge to be framed by judge on being of opinion that prima facie case
of commission of offence by accused is made out, considering facts and
circumstances of each case as a whole. To determine prima facie case, prudent
man test to be applied. Roving inquiry and weighing of pros and cons of case,
not to be undertaken by court at this stage.
(2018) 2 SCC (CRI.) 63; (2018) 3 SCC 358.
MAUVIN GODINHO VS. STATE OF GOA.
Criminal Appeal No. - 315 of 2011 (SC).

(3) 228- If case is based on a complaint lodged before Magistrate under section
190 or 202 of the Code, Magistrate has been conferred with full authority and
jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry into complaint and there after arrive at a
conclusion weather cognizance is fit to be taken on the basis of sections
mentioned in complaint or further sections were to be added or subtracted .
But, if a case is registered by police based on FIR, Magistrate can not exclude or
include any section into charge sheet after investigation has been completed
and charge sheet has been submitted by police. Correct stage for addition or
subtraction of section will have to be determined at the time of framing of
charge .
[2014] ACR 40 (SC).
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. GIRISH RADHAKRISHNAN VARDE.
(4) 228- Documents made available by accused during investigation should also
be considered at the time of order framing charge against accused.
2000 CRI. L. J. 3504 (SC)
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 🆚 MOHAN LAL SONI.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Cri.) No. -593 of 1999.
231. Evidence for prosecution. -

(1 ) 231- Practice to first decide, any objection raised to admissibility of
evidence and then proceed further with trial, imposes study and Swift progress
of trial. Practice recasted. Court should now make note of objection, mark
objected document tentatively as exhibit and decide objection at final stage.
2001 CRI. L. J. 1254 (SC)
BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER.
Cri. Misc. Petn. No. 862 of 2001 in Spl. Leave Petn. (Cri) No. 223 of 2000.
(2) 231- Public Prosecutor should choose to prefer only those witnesses who
are not related to the victim and would support the position case. He may drop
even the non- related witnesses, who would not support the prosecution. Public
Prosecutor can interview even the witnesses in advance to know the stand to
be taken by the witnesses. Public Prosecutor not bound to examine all the
witnesses.

Testimony of related witness cannot be disbelieved on the ground of
being interested witness.
2000 (2) BCCR 317 (SC)
LUKAM SINGH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN.
(3) 231- Persons whose statement were not recorded by police can be
summoned as witness . Examination of witnesses cannot be confined to those
whose statement were recorded under section 161 of the code . Language of
sub-section (1 ) of section 231 is purposely wide, so as to enable the prosecutor
to produce all such evidences as may be produced in support of the
prosecution. The words "all such evidences" in the sub-section cannot be read
as meaning only such evidences as relates to those persons, who have been
examined by the Police. Even if a person is not cited in the charge -sheet and or
his statement was not recorded during investigation, his examination at a
belated stage would not be wholly illegal . Though there may be cases where it
would cause prejudice to the accused . If the facts disclosed in evidence or
questions put in cross - examination necessitate bringing on record the
evidence of a person, Court should not be hesitant in summoning him as a
presentation witness, or even as a Court - witness in terms of section 311 of the
Code while considering scope and ambit of section 231 of the Code ,section 311
has to be kept in view .
1996 CRI. L. J. 1899 (Orissa HC).
BHIMA MUDULI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHERS.
(4) 231- evidence of a witness cannot be discarded simply because of the
reason that the did not examine that witness during investigation .
2004 (2) BCCR 300 (Patna H C) ; 2004 (2) PCCR 154.
RAJENDRA YADAV & OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
(5) 231- while dealing an application under section 231 (2) of the Code (i.e.
deferral of witness) a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused
and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence . It cannot be deferred
on the ground that the defence strategy would be revealed to the prosecution.

STATE OF KERALA VS. RASHEED
(6) 231- Production of prosecution witnesses is the sole and absolute discretion
of the Public Prosecutor. It is for him to state before the court at the very outset
of the trial as to by what evidences he, is going to establish the charge against
the accused. who is to be examined and the sequence and manner of the
examination of its witnesses are all matters which lies in exclusive domain of
the prosecutor with no fetters. No body , nor even the court can interfere with
such an exercise of power by him. Public Prosecutor in his responsibility is
guided only by ethics of fair play and should execute his Solomon duty
faithfully as an officer of the court. 2013 (82) ACC 303 (Delhi HC)
DR. RAJESH TALWAR & ANOTHER VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.
Note:- see section 242 & 254 also.
235. Judgement of acquittal or conviction. -

(1 ) 235- A accused may not be acquitted in a criminal case, merely because
co-accused has been acquitted, if there is cogent evidence available against
him and his case could be segregated from the case of acquitted co-accused.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 785 & also page 600; (2019) 9 SCC 738;
GARGI 🆚 STATE OF HARYANA
See also- (2019) 8 SCC 529.
MANJIT SINGH 🆚 STATE OF PUNJAB.
Criminal Appeal No. -1079 & 1076 of 2011.
(2) 235- By virtue of section 235 (2) of the Code, conviction and sentence
cannot be passed on the same day.
(1997) 3 Crimes 98 (Delhi)
MATLOOB 🆚 STATE ( DELHI)
(3) 235- If the accused is ready to submit his arguments on sentence on the
very day of pronouncement of the judgement of conviction, It is open for the

trial court to hear the parties on sentence on the same day after passing the
judgement of conviction.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 10; (2019) 7 SCC 1.
ACCUSED 'X' 🆚 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
Review Petition (Crl.) No. -301 of 2008 in Criminal Appeal No. -680 of 2007.
Chapter XIX
Trial of warrant- cases by magistrates

A.- Cases instituted on a police report
238. Compliance with section 207.-

239. When accused shall be discharged. -
(1 ) 239- Magistrate can discharge accused before trial i. e at the stage of
framing charge, if he has taken cognizance of office without taking note of fact
that complaint was time barred.
1999 CRI. L. J. 3479 (SC).
(2 ) 239- Charges should be framed if Court prima facie finds that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against accused. Court is not required to
appreciate evidence as if to determine whether material produced was
sufficient to convict accused. Even strong suspicion in regard to commission of
offence would be sufficient to justify framing of charge. Whether or not
allegations are true is a matter, which cannot be determined at the stage of
framing of charge. Any such determination can take place only at conclusion of
trial.
2013 (1) BBCJ IV - 194. (SC)
SHEORAJ SINGH AHLAWAT & ORS. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Criminal Appeal No. - 1803 of 2012
(3) 239- Accused exonerated in departmental proceeding initiated on same
charges on which the criminal proceeding was initiated. The documents of
departmental proceeding not unimpeachable and cannot be taken into
consideration at this stage of 239 of the code. Exoneration in the departmental

proceeding would not ipso facto, result into the quashing of criminal
prosecution.
2019 (1) PLJR 784
SHYAM KISHORE PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
(4) 239- Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for
cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at beginning of
transaction.
(2019) 1 SCC (Cri ) 578 ; (2018) 14 SCC 233
SAMIR SAHAY ALIAS SAMEER SAHAY 🆚 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
(5) 239- Recovery of unlicensed rifle from the possession of co-accused who
during course of interrogation divulged having it purchased from the other
accused.
Held, as the recovery is not on the basis of Inculpatory confessional
statement of the co-accused, that could not be taken into account an section
30, Evidence Act is not applicable. Order rejecting prayer of discharge, set
aside.
2019 (4) PLJR 646 (Patna HC)
SANTOSH KUMAR@ SANTOSH SHARMA 🆚 STATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal miscellaneous No. 2394 of 2017.
----------------------------------------------
Author's blog
242. Evidence for prosecution. -

(1 ) 242- evidence of a witness cannot be discarded simply because of the
reason that the I. O did not examine that witness during investigation .
2004 (2) BCCR PHC 300.

RAJENDRA YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal Appeal No. (DB) - 420, 467 & 475 of 2000. (Patna HC) .
(2) 242- Rejection of application under section 242 section 173( 5) (a) to bring
on record necessary document whose truth and veracity was not in doubt, by
courts below. Refusal of High Court to interfere on technical round. Held, not
proper. Said document permitted to be brought on record.
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 796 ; (2019) 6 SCC 357.
🆚
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION M. SUBRAHMANYAM.
B - cases instituted otherwise than on police report
244. evidence for prosecution. -

(1 ) Warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report. charge framed
only on the basis of the complaint and the substance of examination of the
complainant under section 200 . Prosecution not examining any witness, nor
producing any other evidence. The charge framed by the Magistrate is
quashed.
Crimes 1989 (2) 580
246. Procedure where accused is not discharged. -

(1 ) Expression "the evidence of any remaining witness for prosecution shall
next be taken" In in section 246 (6), should be given wide interpretation. Thus
Magistrate has discretion to does it has discretion to to entertain
supplementary list of witnesses however discretion to entertain supplementary
list of witnesses . However, discretion to be exercised judiciously for
advancement of justice and not to be used for mala fide purpose to haras
accused.
2008 CRI. L. J 3057 (SC)
SAYEEDA FARHANA SHAMIM VS. STATE OF BIHAR.

AIR 1969 Cal. 421 overruled and Crl. Mise. No. 23629 of 2005 (Patna H. C)
Reversed.
C.- Conclusion of trial
248. Acquittal or conviction. -
(1 ) 248- accused convicted on allegations that he had misappropriated money
from bank and sons sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of
one year under section 409 420 of IPC accused remitted entire amount
misappropriated to the bank sentence reduced to two period already
undergone .
2000 CRI. L. J. 4996 (2). (SC).
BONELA SWAMINATHAN VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH.
254. Procedure when not convicted. -

(1 ) 254- For offence under section 323 of IPC, it is not necessary to prove the
injury report, but when it is the prosecution case that informant got bleeding
injury on the head, then the prosecution have either to bring injury report to
corroborate the same or out to have explain the same . Informant was treated
at Barh and even at PMCH, Patna . But none of the doctors examined have
stated any injury to informant nor any injury report brought on record nor any
explanation offered for not producing injury report. Held, conviction under
section 323 IPC not sustainable.
2017 (3) PLJR 340. (Patna HC)
AJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal Appeal No. - 27 of 2014. (Patna HC)
(2) 254- corroborative medical evidence is not at all required for the attraction
of the offence under section 323 of IPC .
2006 (3) PLJR 253 (PATNA HC).
NARAYAN SINGH (IN 460), BHAGWAN SINGH (IN 560) VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal Appeal No. - 460,560 of 2000.

(3) 255- Mere acceptance or admission of the guilt should not be a ground for
reduction of sentence. Nor can the accused bargain with the Court that as he is
pleading guilty sentence be reduced.
2000 CRI. L. J. 384 (SC)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. CHANDRIKA.
256. Non- appearance or death of complainant. -

(1 ) In a complaint case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,
1881,on the death of the complainant, the proceedings do not ipso facto
terminates . Magistrate empowered to substitute fit and proper person to
continue prosecution. Complainant (deceased) represented by lawyer.
complainant's son permitted to continue proceeding . Accused is not entitled to
acquittal merely because complainant is dead .
III (1997) CCR 268. (Karnataka HC).
258. Power to stop proceedings in certain cases. -

(1 ) Special Judge ( Essential Commodity Act 1955 ) has no jurisdiction to
exercise powers envisaged under section 258 of the code . Such power is
exercisable only in summons case exclusively triable by Magistrate.
IV (1997) CCR 355
Chapter XXIII
Evidence in enquiries and trials

A. - Mode of taking and recording evidence
272. Language of courts. -

273. Evidence to be taken in presence of accused. -
(1 ) 273- Taking evidence in presence of accused . Term "presence" in section
273, does not mean actual , physical presence in Court.
2003 CRI. L. J. 2033 (SC)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DR. PRAFUL B. DESAI.

(2 ) 273-Evidence recorded by video conferencing would fully meet
requirements of section 273 of the code. Thus recording of such evidence would
be as per proceedure established by law .
2003 CRI. L. J. 2033 (SC)
(3) 273- Recording of evidence in absence of accused , though there was no
dispensation. Section 273 stood violated being infringement of salutary
principal under section 273 of Code.
2019 CRI. L. J. 2758 (SC)
ATMA RAM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN.
Criminal appeal no. - 656 , 657 of 2019.
(4) 273- Three sessions trials where Proceeding in same court relating to same
incident . Deposition of each witness in one trial was photo copied and tagged
with other two trials. Held, there is no provision in the code, where under
photocopy of the deposition of witness could be used as an evidence relating to
supplementary case record. The witness has to be examined independently
relating to the original records as well as supplementary records. As per section
273 the evidence of a witness has to be recorded in presence of the accused
though there may not be physical presence and may be through his counsel .
Procedure adopted by Lower court not in consonance with procedure
prescribed under Code.
2019 (4) PLJR 1166. (Patna HC)
NITYA NAND MANDAL VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal appeal (S J) Nos. 258, 381, 443 of 2016
Relied upon- (2001) 7 SCC 401.
B.- Commissions for the examination of witnesses
284. When attendance of witness may be dispensed with and

commission issued. -
(1 ) Where attendance of witness cannot be procured without an amount of
delay, expense or inconvenience. Commission can be issued for recording
evidence by way of video conferencing.

2003 CRI. L. J. 2033 (SC)
285. Commission to home to be issued. -

(1 ) 285- An application under section 311 read with 284 and 285 of the Code
was file which is as under:
" That however witness is residing in foreign and post-mortem was
conducted also there, hence witness should be summoned through High
Commission of Nigeria or order may be passed after taking evidence recorded
on commission after receiving Commission under section 284 and 285 of CrPC
through videoconferencing in case of not coming from foreign. "
Held, witness Dr. I. Yusuf residing in Nigeria, in order to avoid
inconvenience to the witness as also to the parties, issuing of commission and
recording his evidence through video conferencing appears to be a valuable
alternative, and the trial court directed to take all the requisite steps so as to
ensure that his evidence comes on record.
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 765 ; (2019) 6 SCC 203.
MANJU DEVI 🆚 STATE OF RAJASTHAN.
294. No formal proof of certain documents. -

(1 ) Admission by councels for defence or by prosecution is sufficient
compliance of section 294 of the Code . Compact disc must be allowed to be
played for the purpose of admission.
2015 (4) BBCJ IV -637 (SC)
SHAMSHER SINGH VERMA VS. STATE OF HARYANA.
Cri. Appeal No. - 1525 of 2015 (SC).
(2 ) 294- Permission of court to receive certified copy of certain documents.
Documents out to be produced with petition are certified copies of order of Civil
Court, pahanies and FIR , are public documents within meaning of section 74 of
Evidence Act, and no formal prove their of is necessary. Documents in question
can be admitted by virtue of section 77 of the Evidence Act .

2002 CRI. L. J. 3167 (Andhra Pradesh HC) .
MD. AKBAR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH.
Criminal Petition No. - 411 of 2002
299. Record of evidence in absence of accused. -

(1 ) 299- Evidence recorded in absence of accused under section 299 of the
Code. The deposition of such deceased witness can form basis of conviction,
when preconditions of section 299 is complied with. (In this case conviction
under section 302 of IPC was based only on the evidence recorded under
section 299 of the Code.)
2000 CRI. L. J. 1803 (SC)
NIRMAL SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 118-119 of 1998.
CHAPTER XXIV
GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO INQUIRIES AND TRIAL
300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for
same offence. -
(1 ) 300- Double jeopardy: Accused tried for offence of attempted dacoity under
section 399 and 402 of IPC and section 3 of the TADA Act . He was not tried
there in for illegal possession of fire arms which was seized from their
possession. Subsequent trial for illegal possession of firearms under section 25
Arms Act and Section 5 of TADA Act could not be said to be for same offence.
Held the subsequent trial is not barred.
1999 CRI. L. J. 263 (SC)
MOHINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB.
301. Appearance by Public Prosecutors. -

) There is no bar on the Victim to engage a private counsel to assist the
(1
prosecution, subject to the permission of the Court. Victim’s counsel is only
intended to have a secondary role qua the Public Prosecutor. Ordinarily, a

Victim’s counsel should not be given the right to make oral arguments or
examine and cross-examine witnesses. Private party’s pleader is subject to the
directions of the Public Prosecutor and same principle should apply to the
Victim’s counsel under the proviso to section 24(8). If the victim’s council feels
that a certain aspect has gone unaddressed in examination of the witness or
the argument advanced by public prosecutor, he may route any question or
points through the Public Prosecutor. Victim’s council has limited right of
assisting the prosecution, which may extend to suggesting questions to the
court or the prosecution but not putting them by himself.
2020 (1) PLJR (SC) 147
REKHA MURARKA VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Cr. Appeal No. 1727 of 2019
302. Permission to conduct prosecution.-

(1 )302- On the issue of permission to conduct prosecution by the complainant
or victim. It is held that prosecution is to be conducted by a Public Prosecutor
who is an officer of Court and required to assist Court to do justice rather than
to be vindictive and take side with any of the parties. If aggrieved party is
allowed to proceed to take over investigation, avowed object of fairness in
criminal justice dispensation system shall be shaken.
Held, though Magistrate is not bound to grant permission at the mere
asking but victim has a right to assist court in a trial before Magistrate.
Magistrate may consider as to whether victim is in a position to assist court
and as to whether the trial does not involve such complexities which cannot be
handled by the victim.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 588; (2019) 8SCC 387
AMIR HAMZA SHAIKH & OTHERS 🆚 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER
Chapter XXIV
General provisions as to inquiries and trials

306. Tender of pardon to accomplice. -

(1 ) 306- Prosecution entitled to cite accused as witness even without recourse
to Section 306 of the code. Such decision of Prosecution does not bind court and
can be interfered with, if interest of justice so requires. It is certainly open to
court to finally decide whether cognizance ought to be taken or not against
such persons, after balancing all relevant considerations, including whether
decision to cite them as witness rather than accused, would strengthen
prosecution case against more serious accused.
(2019) 1 SCC (CRI) 853 ; (2018) 15 SCC 192.
GIRISH SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS.
Criminal appeal no. - 939 - 42 of 2017.
(2) 306- Accomplish not disclosing name of one accused person when
questioned by police before he offered to confess . Held not of much
consequence when in confessional statement he implicated himself and other
accused persons .
1999 CRI. L. J. 2889. (SC)
RAMPRASAD
With
VINIT
With
GOPAL MAHARAJ
And

VS.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Criminal Appeal No. -592 of 1994; 1187 of 1995; 507 of 1993; and 335 of 1999.
(3) 306(4) - Examination of approver under section 306 (4 ) of the Code before
magistrate, is neither enquiry nor trial. Approver may be examined in the
chamber. Further approver must not be examined in presence of accused and
giving opportunity to the accused to cross examine approver is not necessary at
that stage.
2000 CRI. L. J. 1417 (SC)

RANADHIR BASU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL.
(4) 306(4)(a) - Accused was not permitted to cross-examine approver before
committal of case. No objection was raised when approver was examined and
cross-examined during trial. Accused cannot be permitted to raise such pela at
the time of final argument. Trial cannot vitiate as per section 465(2) of the
Code.
2000 CRI. L. J. 1429 (SC)
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SURINDER MOHAN & OTHERS.
309. Power to postpone Or adjourn proceedings. -

(1 ) Adjournments granted on mere asking. Cross -examination of witnesses
where deferred without recording any reason and dates were given after a long
gap . Held, trial conducted in an extremely haphazard and piecemeal manner.
Such manner of conducting trial deprecated .
2013 CRI. L. J. 3212 (SC).
GURNAIB SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB.
(2) 309- Expeditious disposal is required in criminal matters and that would
naturally be part of guarantee of fair trial. However the attempts to expedite
the process , should not be at the expense of the basic elements of fairness and
the opportunity to the accused, on which postulates, the entire criminal
administration of justice is founded . In the pursuit for expeditious disposal, the
cause of justice must never be allowed to suffer or be sacrificed.
2020 (1) PLJR (SC) 289.
ANOKHILAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH.
Criminal appeal no. - 62 - 62 of 2014 (SC).
(3) 309- in sessions trial cross examination of the witness should not be
deferred beyond two or three days.
2000 CRI. L. J. 810 (SC).
AMBIKA PRASAD & ANOTHER

WITH
RAM CHANDER
&
RAJINDER SINGH
VS.
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
Criminal Appeal Nos. -1152 with 1153 & 1154 of 1997.
DOONGAR SINGH with NARAIN CHANDELIA 🆚 STATE Of RAJASTHAN.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2045-47 of 2017.
311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person

present. -
(1 ) 311- Re-investigation examination of prosecution witness cannot be
permitted merely for filling up lacuna in prosecution evidence, mistake or
laches in conducting case by Public Prosecutor cannot be understood to mean
lacuna in prosecution case.
1999 CRI. L. J. 3529 (SC)
RAJENDRA PRASAD VS. NARCOTIC CELL THROUGH ITS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE,
DELHI.
(2 ) 311- The directions given in Rajdeo Sharma vs. State of Bihar AIR 1999
SCW 3208; AIR 1998 SC 3281 ; 1998 CRI.L.J. 4596 do not curtail the power of
Court, even if the prosecution evidence is closed in compliance with the
directions contained in the main judgement . It is still open to the prosecution
to invoke the powers of the court under Section 311 of the Code, if evidence of
any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case.
It is the duty of the court to summon and examine or recall and re -exam any
such person.
1999 CRI. L. J. 4541 (SC)

RAJ DEO SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR
NOTE - Direction for speedy trial of criminal case are given in main judgement
of Rajdeo Sharma vs. State of Bihar. This order was passed on the petition filed
by Central Bureau of Investigation seeking for clarification of those directions
1999 CRI. L. J. 4541 (SC)
RAJ DEO SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR
(3) 311- Rejection of earlier application for examination of witnesses by court.
Same court can reconsider second application upon certain changed
circumstances, if it is felt by the Court that it is necessary for end of justice and
earlier rejection will not bar the subsequent application.
1999 CRI. L. J. 690 (ALLAHABAD H C)
LAKSHMI SHANKER VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
(4) 311- Several dates fixed for examination of witnesses but not a single
witness turned up, bailable as well as non bailable warrant of arrest were also
issue against witnesses . Closing of prosecution case there after is proper,
provisions of section 311 of the Code would not be attracted.
2000 (CRI.L.J.3705 (Patna H C).
Followed- AIR 1977 SC 2432.
(5)311- Order of closing prosecution case was passed by Additional Sessions
Judge . Recall of that order by Additional Session Judge himself is not
permissible .
2000 CRI. L. J. 3705 (Patna H C).
Followed- AIR 1977 SC 2432.
(6) 311- Non examination of Investigating Officer is not fatal , when no serious
contradictions is pointed out in respect of evidence of important eye witnesses.
2004 CRI. L. J. 4229 (SC).
(7) 311- Persons whose statements were not recorded by police, can be
summoned as witness under section 311 of the Code.
1996 CRI. L. J. 1899 (Orissa HC).
BHIMA MUDULI & OTHS VS. STATE OF ORISSA.

(8) 311- Plea that state in spite of receiving 'dasti' for production of witness,
failed to do so. Further that state would be able to fill in loopholes if allowed
examination of witnesses after closer of argument. Held, plea, not tenable in
view of Section 62 and rules framed by High Court. Which do not recognise
'dasti'. It cannot be said that witnesses fail to appear in spite of summons being
served.
2009 CRI. L. J. 4509 (Patna HC)
MOHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
(9) 311- while dealing with an application under section 311 Cr.P.C read along
with Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the following principles will have to
be born in mind by the court:
(i) Whether the court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it?
Whether the evidence Shout to be lead in under section 311 is noted by the
court for a just decision of a case?
(ii) The exercise of the widest discretionary power under section 311 Cr.P.C
should ensure that the judgement should not be rendered on inchoate,
inconclusive and speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of
justice would be defeated.
(iii) If evidence of any witness appears to the court to be essential to the just
decision of the case, it is the power of the court to summon and examine or
recall and re- examine any such person.
(iv) The exercise of power under section 311 Cr.P.C should be resorted to only
with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts,
which will lead to a just and correct decision of the case.
(v) The exercise of the said power cannot be doubbed as feeling in a lacuna in
a prosecution case, unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it
apparent that the exercise of power by the court would result in causing serious
prejudice to the accused, resulting in miscarriage of Justice.
(vi) The wide discretionary power should be exercised judiciously and not
arbitrarily.
(vii) The Court must satisfy itself that it was in every respect essential to
examine such a witness or to recall him for further examination in order to
arrive at a just decision of the case.

(viii) The object of section 311 Cr.P.C simultaneously imposes a duty on the
court to determine the truth and to render a just decision.
(ix) The court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary,
not because it would be impossible to pronounce the judgement without it, but
because there would be a failure of justice without such evidence being
considered.
(x) Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the safeguard,
while exercising that discretion. The court should bear in mind that no party in
a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was
not adduced or a relevant material was not bought on record due to any
inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistake to
be rectified.
(xi) The Court should be conscious of the position that after all the trial is
basically for the prisoners and the court should afford an opportunity to them
in the fairest manner possible. In that parity of reasoning,it would be safe to err
in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting the
prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused . The court
should bear in mind that improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary
power, may lead to undesirable results.
(xii) The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the
nature of the case against any of the party.
(xiii) The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is
likely to be tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also ensure
that an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party.
(xiv) The power under section 311 Cr.P.C must therefore, be invoked by the
court only in order to meet the ends of justice for a strong and valid reasons
and the same must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection . The
court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the
victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities
to the the persons concerned, must be insured being a constitutional goal, as
well as a human right.
(2013) 14 SCC 461
RAJARAM PRASAD YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER.

(10) 311- Two prosecution witnesses who have earlier supported the
prosecution case and after passage of 14 months filed application under
section 311 of the Code for Re- recording their statement on the ground that
the previous statements were made under the influence of the police . Held,
object of section 311 as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view
of the accused and prosecution but also from the point of view of any ordinary
society . Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the Court
has to be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of Justice . Both the
prosecution witnesses have not assigned any reasons for the delay in making
application it is obvious that they had been won over . Petition under section
311 was rejected.
2017 (4) PLJR (SC) 167 Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
RATANLAL VS. PRAHLAD JAT AND OTHERS.

311 A. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen

signatures or handwriting. -
(1 ) 311 A- Until Parliament makes appropriate law for collecting voice sample ,
Judicial Magistrate has power to order a person to give his voice sample for
purpose of Investigation of crime .
(2019) 3 SCC (CRI) 252.
RITESH SINHA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
312. Expenses of complainant and witnesses. -

(1 ) 312- Expenses of witnesses and proper diet money must be paid
immediately to witnesses not only when he is examined but for every adjourned
hearing and he should not be left harassed by subordinate staff of Court.
2000 CRI. L. J. 2780 (SC)
SWARAN SINGH With JAGJIT SINGH 🆚 STATE OF PUNJAB.
Criminal Appeal No. -720 &721 of 1993.
313. Power to examine the accused. -

(1 ) 313- Questions put to accused were not strictly in accordance with section
313 of the code. Held, no prejudice caused to the defence mere defective
examination of accused under section 313 of Code cannot be ground for setting
aside judgement of trial court .
1999 CRI. L. J. 2479 (Patna HC).
STATE OF BIHAR VS. MOHAN MISKAR AND ANOTHER.
Death Reference Case No. -5 of 1998 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 131 and 155 of
1998.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 🆚 RAGHUVIR.
(2) 313- Omission at the stage of section 313 of the Code by itself does not
vitiate the judgement . Accused must show prejudice.
2008 (2) BBCJ V- 36 (Patna H C).
Case Referred- AIR 1984 SC 1622.
(3) 313- "Audi alteram partem, " statement of accused. Held , there can be no
generalized assumption of prejudice arising from the inadequate or omission of
statement under section 313 of the Code,and whether prejudice was caused
thereby will have to be determined in facts and circumstances of each case, on
balancing of a number of factors . Section 313 of the Code provides an
opportunity to accused for defence by making him fully aware of the
prosecution allegations against him, and to answer the same in support of his
innocence. But equally there cannot be a generalized presumption of prejudice
to an accused , merely by reason of any omission or inadequate questions put
to an accused there under .
(2019) 3 S. C. C (Cri) 886 ; (2019) 9 S. C. C 549 ; 2019 (4) PLJR (SC) 412.
FAINUL KHAN with SAINUL KHAN with MIR SHAUKAT VS. STATE OF
JHARKHAND.
Criminal Appeal No. - 937 with 938 with 939 of 2011.
GzAlso see- section 464.

(4) 313- Statement of accused under section 313 of the Code is not a
substantive evidence of Defence of the accused , but only an opportunity to the
accused to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the
prosecution case of accused.
2019 (4) PLJR (SC) 386.
UTTAM RAM VS. DEVINDER SINGH HUDAN AND ANR.
(5) 313- Statement made by accused under section 313 of the code, can be used
as an aid to lend credence to evidence led by prosecution.
(2020) 1 SCC (CRI) 63 ; (2019) 10 SCC 623.
RAJENDER @ RAJESH @ RAJU, WITH RAJ KUMAR @ RAJU, WITH SHARDA JAIN
VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI).
Criminal Appeal No. - 1889 with 1890 of 2010 and 2377 of 2014.
(6) 313- Defence may not have been taken by an accused under section 313 of
the Code cannot absolved the prosecution from proving its case beyond all
reasonable doubt. The weakness in the defence taken cannot become the
strength of the prosecution to claim that in the circumstances it was not
required to prove anything.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 309; (2019) 8 SCC 50.
ANAND RAMACHANDRA CHOUGULE 🆚 SIDARAI LAXMAN CHOUGULA
with
STATE OF KARNATAKA 🆚 SIDARAI LAXMAN CHOUGULA.
Criminal Appeal Nos. -1006 with 1007 of 2010.
(7) 313- Held, the fact that the SIM card did not belong to accused is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the SIM card was recovered from one of the rooms of
the house of the accused with regard to which he failed to offer any
satisfactory explanation under section 313 of the Code. Proof of calls from a
mobile phone can be established on the basis of the oral evidence. If the oral
evidence regarding receipt of phone calls from the aforesaid mobile number is
acceptable by the Court.

Conviction of accused under section 302 of IPC restored by the Supreme
Court.
(2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 556 ; (2018) 14 SCC 111.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 🆚 MAHIPAL
319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be

guilty of offence. -
(1 ) 319- Court of sessions can summon any person not already summoned or
discharged by the police, on perusal of the records before it after commitment.
It is not necessary that it must do so, after recording evidence . The provisions
of section 319 are in parimiteria the same as of 351 of the old Code, except
that it has removed the shortcoming in section 351 . The only requirement is
that the Court must be satisfied on the material before it that a prima facie
case exists against the accused persons have to be summoned. Section 227 and
228 confers such power. Section 319 of the new code has not over ridden in
Raghuvansh Dubey's case. Section 319 is not the sole repository of power.
1985 BBCJ 470 (FB)
SK. LATFUR RAHMAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE ;
1993 Cr. L. J 1394 LAL CHAND AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA ;
AIR 1984 S. C 718, A. R. ANTULY VS. RAMDAS SRINIWAS NAYAK AND ANR.
(2 ) 319- A first information report had been lodged against as many as 15
persons including petitioner Raghuvansh Dubey. On investigation, the police
submitted final form under section 173 in which Raghuvansh Dubey was not
sent up by the police for trial, whilest the remaining accused were. The Sub-
Divisional Magistrate took cognizance against the 14 accused persons and
expressly discharge Raghuvansh Dubey, and there after transferred the case to
a Magistrate for commitment. In the course of trial, the transferee magistrate
noticed that Raghuvansh Dubey had been named in the FIR and was also
named by five more witnesses in their statements under section 161 . He
therefore, summoned Raghuvansh Dubey as an accused to stand his trial along
with others . This was challenged on behalf of the petitioner Raghuvansh Dubey
. But the division bench of this Court in AIR 1964 Patna 487 upholding the
additional accused person rejected the revision petition. upholding the High

Court's view in an even stronger and more categoric terms, Sikri J, speaking
for the bench observed :
" In our opinion once cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, he
takes cognizance of an offence and not the offenders; once he takes
cognizance of an offence it is his duty to find out who the offenders really are
and once he comes to the conclusion that apart from the persons sent up by the
police some other persons are involved, it is his duty to proceed against those
persons. The summoning of the additional accused is part of the proceeding
initiated by his taking cognizance of an offence.
AIR 1964 Patna 487
RAGHUVANSH DUBEY VS. STATE OF BIHAR
(3 ) 319- Cognizance of an offence against a set of accused on basis of
committal on police report and something of another set of accused on basis of
FIR under section 319 of the Code, the joint trial of such accused is permissible.
1984 Cri. L. J 889
(4) 319- Proceeding under section 202 against more than one person.
Magistrate not issuing process against one of them. He can at later stages of
trial issue summons against such person under section 319 of code to stand
trial.
1983 Cri. L. J 1044 (SC)
(5) 319- Person named in the FIR but not charge sheet by police , can be
proceeded against under section 319 of Code.
2010 CRI. L. J 851 (SC)
SUMAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Also see-(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 801 ; (2019) 6 SCC 368.
RAJESH & OTHERS 🆚 STATE OF HARYANA.
(6) 319- A person exonerated during investigation, can be summoned as
additional accused to face trial under section 319 of the code . Court has power
to proceed against other accused persons, if evidence shows their involvement
in occurrence.

2011 (4) BLJ 245
MANEZAR ALAM VS. STATE OF BIHAR
(7) 319- The expression "accused" have not been defined in the Criminal
Procedure Code, its meaning has to be always understood in the context they
have been used in Cr.P.C in various sections of Cr.P.C . Expression "accused"
used under section 227 of the code, related to such person who have been
either charge-sheeted by the police or against whom summons have been
issued by the court, following the order taking cognizance. At the stage of
section 227 nothing else has to be seen, accept the materials collected by the
police in the case diary . The impression accused therefore used under section
227 cannot have the same meaning as that under section 319. Where in course
of trial apart from the person facing the trial, the trial court can summon any
other persons to face the trial, who was not accused in course of such trial. A
discharged person can again be charged and tried on the basis of evidence
collected in course of trial, a person not named in FIR can also be summoned
under section 319 of the code, if evidence is there against him, before the
Court.
2012 (1) BBCJ V 169
GANGA MAHTO VS. STATE OF BIHAR
(8) 319- Provisions of section 319 comes into operation at post cognizance
stage. Basic requirement for invoking Section 319 is that it should appear to
Court that some other person, who is not arranged as an accused in that case
has committed offence . It is not necessary for Court to wait till entire evidence
is collected for exercising such powers.
2009 (3) PLJR 399 (PATNA H. C)
SAKIL AHMAD @ SHAKIL MIAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Relied upon (2000) 3 SCC 262.
(9) 319- "Any person not being an accused" includes a person who has been
dropped by police during investigation, accused person against whom
proceeding have been queshed is also a person "not being the accused" and
court can take cognizance against him and Summon him as suspect to face
trial, if the evidence comes against him during trial.
2009 (3) PLJR 399 (PATNA H. C)

SAKIL AHMAD @SHAKIL MIAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR
Relied upon - AIR 1979 SC 339 & AIR 1983 SC 67.
(10) 319- Hearing to accused at the stage of section 319 of Code is not
contemplated.
2013 CRI. L. J 776 (SC)
(11) 319- The trial court while discharging accused ignored the Supplementary
charge-sheet submitted against the accused. Such accused can be proceeded
under section 319 of the Code on the basis of supplementary charge-sheet,
particularly when sufficient material is brought on record against him during
course of trial.
(2019) 1 SCC (CRI) 748 ; (2019) 2 SCC 393.
DEEPU @ DEEPAK VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH.
(12) 319- Court can exercise powers under section 319 even on basis of
statement in examination -in -chief of witness. Court need not wait till cross-
examination and for evidence against accused. Person not named in FIR or
though named in FIR but not been charge-sheeted or person discharged can be
summoned, provided from evidence it appears that such person can be tried
along with the accused already facing trial. Court is not powerless even where
the stage of giving opportunity to complainant to file protest petition has gone
.
2019 CRI. L. J. 2968 (SC)
RAJESH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA.
(13) 319- One of the differences between section 319 of the Code and section
20 A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954) is that, while in
the former even if it appears to the Court from the evidence (either during
inquiry or trial of the offence) , that another person is to be tried along with the
already arraigned accused, then the court can proceed against that other
person. While in the latter the the satisfaction of the court that such
manufacturer (distributor or dealer), is also concerned with that offence must

be gathered from "the evidence adduced before it during the trial". In other
words the power under section 20 A cannot be invoked until the trial begins
and after the trial ends.
2000 CRI. L. J. 26 (SC)
M/S. OMPRAKASH SHIVPRAKASH VS. K. I. KURIAKOSE AND OTHERS.
(14) 319- A constitution bench of Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh versus State
of Punjab while examining the scope of section 319 CrPC held in para 106 as
under:- para-106. "We hold that through only a prima facie case is to be
established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on
the anvil of cross -examination, is requires much stronger evidence then mere
probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is
more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but
short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would
lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain
from exercising power under section 319 CrPC. In section 319 CrPC the purpose
of providing if "it appears from the evidence that any person not being the
accused has committed any offence" is clear from the words "for which such
person could be tried together with the accused". The words used are not "for
which such person could be convicted". There is, therefore, no scope for the
court acting under section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the
accused.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 828; (2019) 9 SCC 805
MANI PUSHPAK JOSHI 🆚 STATE OF UTTRAKHAND & ANOTHER
Also see-(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 407; (2019) 7 SCC 806.
SHIV PRAKASH MISHRA 🆚 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
(15) 319- Following substantial questions of law referred to larger bench of
appropriate strength:
(i) whether trial court has power under section 319 CrPC for summoning
additional accused, when trial with respect to other co-accused has ended and
judgement of conviction rendered on same date before pronouncing

summoning order; (ii) Whether trial court has power under section 319 CrPC for
summoning additional accused, when trial in respect of certain other
absconding accused (whose presence is subsequently secured) is ongoing/
pending, having been bifurcated from main trial; and (iii) What are the
guidelines that competent court must follow, while exercising power under
section 319 CrPC.
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 883 ; (2019) 6 SCC 638.
SUKHPAL SINGH KHAIRAAT with HOGA SINGH 🆚 STATE OF PUNJAB.
(16) 319- In-laws not named in dying declaration, FIR or chargesheet, held,
cannot be added under section 319 of the Code to face trial under Section 498
-A,304 -B/302 IPC and section 3 and 4 of DP Act, 1961 on the basis of vague
and non specific allegations.
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 320 ; (2019) 4 SCC 556
SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA & OTHERS with KHUSBU GUPTA 🆚 STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH.
Criminal Appeal No. -395 with 396 of 2019.
320. Compounding of offences.-

(1 ) 320- Parties related to each other, residing in same village. Decided to live
in peace. Treating special case under inherent power, application for
compounding can be considered. Fact that Informant is dead, makes no
difference when aggrieved person seeking permission to compound in non-
compoundable case.
1 (1997) CCR 593.
(2) 320- Neither subordinate criminal Courts nor High Courts empowered to
compound non- compoundable offence. Statutory bar under Section 320 (9) of
the code, cannot be overcome by resorting to inherent power under section 482
of the code.
III (1996) CCR 600.
III (1996) CCR (FB) 108.

(3) 320- Compounding against one of several accused, does not affect other
accused.
1963 (1) Cr. L. J. 705.
(4) 320- Offence under section 326 IPC is not compoundable. However,
considering fact that parties have settled their disputes outside Court and 10
years have elapsed from the date of incident and accused have already
undergone 3 months rigorous imprisonment. Sentence of imprisonment
reduced to period already undergone.
1999 CRI. L. J. 3496 (SC).
SURENDRA NATH MOHANTY AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF ORISSA.
Overruled- 1973 CRI. L. J 1612 (SC) & 1989 CRI. L. J. 121 (SC).
(5 ) 320- Withdrawal of warrant trial complaint case on the ground of
compromise, permissible.
2005 (3) PLJR 300.
KESHAV JAYANT TIWARY VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Cri. Mise. No. - 28809 of 2002.
(6) 320- Only those of offences which are covered under table 1 or table 2
provided under section 320 of the code can be compounded in view of Section
320 (9). Offence under section 326 of panel code is not compoundable, being
not mentioned in table 1 or table 2.
2005 CRI. L. J. 646 (SC).
Held Per Incuriam : - Ram Pujan Vs. State, 1973 CRI. L. J. 1612; AIR 1973 SC
2418 and Mahesh Chand Vs. State, 1989 CRI. L. J. 121; AIR 1988 SC 2111
(7) 320- Offence which is not compoundable under section 320 of the Code,
cannot be made compoundable with permission of Court . Offence under
section 326 of IPC though not compoundable, Court considering fact that,
parties have come to settlement and victims where having no grievance
against accused and letter being undergone imprisonment of about six months.
In above circumstances sentence reduced to period already underground .
1999 CRI. L. J. 1342. (SC)

RAM LAL AND ANOTHER VS. JAMMU AND KASHMIR.
2000 CRI. L. J. 384 (SC)
(9) 320- Merely because an offence is compoundable with the permission of the
Court under section 320 of CrPC, still discretion can be exercised by the Court
having regard to nature of offence. If the offence effects society at large. Held,
that the High Court has not committed any error in not accepting the
application filed for compounding the offence.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 236; (2019) 4 SCC 354.
BHAGYAN DAS 🆚 STATE OF UTTARAKHAND.
(10) 320- Held even if office is not Compoundable within scope of section 320 of
the Code. Court may, in view of compromise arrived at between parties, reduce
sentence imposed while maintaining conviction.
Held, section 394 IPC is not Compoundable within scope of section
320 CrPC. However Supreme Court have allowed the partition for compromise
to compound the offence.
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 854 ; (2018) 15 SCC 343.
UNNIKRISHNAN ALIAS UNNIKUTTAN 🆚 STATE OF KERALA.
SLP (Crl.) No… (Crl.MP No. -18630 of 2016.
(11) 320- Offences under section 307 IPC and under Arms Act, held, fall in
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore, have to be treated as
crime against society and not against individual. Therefore, such proceedings
cannot be quashed under section 482 of the Code, on ground that parties have
arrived at a compromise and resolved their dispute among themselves.

(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706; (2019) 5 SCC 688.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 🆚 LAXMI NARAYAN & OTHERS.
(12) 320- order compounding an offence which is not compoundable under the
Code is not appropriate. Statutory provisions can not be ignored. But while
imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise is relevant, which
the Cort may keep in mind.
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 469 ; (2019) 5 SCC 166.
SHANKAR & OTHERS 🆚 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
321. Withdrawal from prosecution. -

(1 ) 321- Withdrawal of warrant trial complaint case on the ground of
compromise, permissible.
2005 (3) PLJR 300.
KESHAV JAYANT TIWARY VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Cri. Mise. No. - 28809 of 2002.
(2) 321- complainant seeking to withdraw complaint file for offence under
section 169 of the IPC as police has submitted charge sheet against accused for
offences including section 169 of the IPC permission to withdraw complaint
granted even the petition by the accused to cross complaint was rejected.
1999 CRI. L. J. 3512 (SC)
SELVI J. JAYALALITHA VS. R. SAI BHARATHI.
S. L. P. (CRI.) No. -3290 of 1997 with S. L. P. (CRI.) No. -671 of 1998.
(3) 321- In the matter of withdrawal of a case under section 321 of the Code,
the Public Prosecutor cannot act like the post office on behalf of the State
Government. He is required to act in good faith, peruse the materials on record
and form an independent opinion that the withdrawal of the case would really
subserve the public interest at large. An order of Government on the Public
Prosecutor in this regard is not binding. He cannot remain oblivious to his

lawful obligation under the Code. He is required to constantly remember his
duty to the Court as well as his duty to the collective.
(2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 42; (2014) 10 SCC 380.
BAIRAM MURALIDHAR 🆚 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH.
Also see-(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 181; (2018) 18 SCC 448.
ABDUL WAHAB K. 🆚 STATE OF KERALA.
323.Procedure when after commencement of enquiry or trial,

Magistrate finds case should be committed. -
(1 ) 323- Words "out to be tried by Court of session" gives power to Magistrate
to commit case to Sessions Court though not exclusively triable by sessions. If
Magistrate is of opinion that case should be tried by Sessions Court.
2010 CRI. L. J 3613 (Allahabad H. C)
JIMEDAR YADAV VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
(2) 323- place of occurrence, mode of occurrence and dispute involved in both
criminal cases absolutely different all accused person not common in both
incidents both cases cannot be considered as case and counter case, arising out
of same incident ground furnished by magistrate for committing case two
sessions court being case encounter case of same incident is held to be
incorrect.
2018 CRI. L. J. 53 (Patna HC)
BRAJ KISHORE THAKUR VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
326. Conviction or commitment on evidence partly recorded

by one magistrate and partly by another. -
(1 ) 326- General principal of law laid down under section 326 (1) not applicable
to cases summarily tribale under section 12AA ( 1) (f ) of Essential Commodities
Act. Successor Special Judge has not Authority under law to proceed with the
trial of the case from the stage at which his predecessor has left it . Conviction

by successor Special Judge relying on the evidence recorded by his predecessor
without recalling the witness is irregular and illegal and cannot be cured.
1990 BBCJ 235
340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.-

(1 ) 340- Accused filing forged affidavits before Supreme Court. Supreme Court
cannot try and punish the accused. Order of Supreme Court convicting accused
and sentencing him to 3 months imprisonment, liable to be set aside for non
compliance with procedure under section 195 of the Code read with section 340
of the Code and also on account of want of original jurisdiction to try a criminal
offence under Section 193 of IPC.
2000 CRI. L. J. 755. (SC)
RANDHIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
(2) 340- In cases of fabricating false records before court. Supreme Court itself
cannot assume criminal jurisdiction and Convict petitioner without trial.
Statutory procedure provided under section 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C out to be
followed. Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
2000 CRI. L. J. 388 (SC)
M. S. AHLAWAT VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Writ petition (Cri.) No. -353 of 2000.
357. Order to pay compensation. -

(1 ) 357- Considering the period undergone after conviction, incident in
question as old and no criminal antecedent of accused etc. Held, proper to
sentence about it from three months to the extent of period of one month
which was already gone by him. But enhanced the total fine amount awarded
under different section from rupees 800 to rupees 15000 and ordered to be
paid to Complainant under section 357 of the code.
(2019) SCC (Cri) 137; (2018) 18 SCC 43.
HARIBHAU 🆚 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
(2) 357- The accused was imposed with a sentence of six months rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of rupees 25000 for the offence under section 325
IPC. Held, in case the fine is deposit by the convicted accused, the same shall be
disbursed in favour of the injured witness.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 192;(2018) 18 SCC 535.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 🆚 MOHAN LAL & ANOTHER.
(3) 357- High Court while suspending sentence and directing release of accused
on bail directed that appellant should also deposit fine amount awarded
before Court below
Held to be proper. Object and purpose of section 357 is to empower Court
to give direction for payment of compensation intended to do something for
victim. At best section 357 (2) can be integrated to defer or with hold utilisation
of amount of compensation awarded till limitation of appeal elapses, or if filed,
till it is decided. Section 357 in no manner stays sentence of fine during
pendency of appeal.
(2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 831 ; (2018) 15 SCC 139.
SATYENDRA KUMAR MEHRA ALIAS SATENDERA KUMAR MEHRA 🆚 STATE OF
JHARKHAND.
(4) 357- After conviction under section 307 of IPC in a case of frustrated love
affair. The victim girl became paraplegic due to the injury caused by accused. In
such case sentence of life imprisonment altered to period already undergone.
But, substantial compensation added to fine already deposited, an additional
Rs. 8 lakhs, which is directed to be paid to victim/her family.
(2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 553 ; (2018) 14 SCC 58.
PRANJAY PURUSHOTAMBHI GORADIA 🆚 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
(5)357- Section 357 CrPC confers duty on the court to apply its mind to
the question of compensation in every criminal case. It necessarily
follows that the Court must disclose that it has applied its mind to this
question in every Criminal Case.

ANKUSH SHIVAJI GAIKWARD 🆚
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
Arising out of S. L. P (Crl) No. 6287 of 2011.
357-A. Victim compensation scheme. -
(1 ) 357 A- Abduction and murder of diseased a businessman and his son.
victim's family should be compensated under section 357 A. State Government
directed to pay interim compensation of rupees 10 lacs, to the family of victim .
2015 CRI. L. J. 661 (SC)
SURESH & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF HARYANA.
Criminal Appeal No. - 420 of 2012
(2) 357-A- After holding guilty under section 326 IPC the accused persons
sentenced for 5 years RI and both accused were directed to pay additional
compensation of rupees 150000 each to victim and State of Himachal Pradesh
shall pay compensation admissible under victim compensation scheme as in
Vogue to acid victim within three months. If the accused do not pay additional
compensation amount of rupees 150000 within 6 months defaulting accused
shall suffer six months RI.
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 553 ; (2019) 5 SCC 373.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 🆚 VIJAY KUMAR ALIAS PAPPU.
362. Court not to alter judgement. -

(1 ) 362- High Court passed an order under section 362 of the Code dated
28.4.2017 recalling its own order dated 18.4.2017. The order dated 28.4.2017
reads as under:
" Notwithstanding section 362 CrPC the order rendered by this court earlier
on 18.4.2017 is found to be patently erroneous and therefore the order is
withdrawn.
Held, High Court should not have exercise the power under section 362
CrPC for a correction on merits. However patently erroneous the earlier order
be, it can only be corrected in the process known to law and not under section
362 CrPC. The whole purpose of section 362 CrPC is only to correct a clerical or
arithmetical error. And set aside the order dated 28.4.2017.

(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 634 ; (2018) 15 SCC 316.
MOHAMMED ZAKIR 🆚 SHABANA & OTHERS.
Chapter XXIX
Appeals
372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. -
(1 ) 372- Right available to victim as defined in section 2 (w a) of the Code is not
a mere matter of procedure but a substantive right. Said right to appeal is
available even if alleged offence took place prior to 31-12- 2009, but the order
of acquittal was passed by trial court after 31- 12- 2009. On question of need
for victim to apply for leave to appeal against order of acquittal while
preferring an appeal under section 372 proviso, held, there is no need for a
victim to apply for leave to appeal.
(2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 801 ; (2019) 2 SCC 752.
🆚
MALLIKARJUN KODAGALI (DEAD) REPRESENTED THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES STATE OF KARNATAKA.
373. Appeal from orders requiring security or refusal to

accept or rejecting security for keeping peace or good
behaviour. -
374.Appeals from convictions. -
(1 ) 374- Constitution of India article 225 and rule 8 of Patna High Court rules
prohibits hearing appeal for admission in absence of intimation of surrender ,
in case appeal filed against conviction.
2005 CRI. L. J. 482 (Patna HC).
375. No appeal in certain cases when accused pleads guilty. -

376. No appeal in petty cases. -

(1 ) 376- Appeal against admonition not barred by section 376 of the Code,
since admonition cannot be treated to be a synonym of fine.
2003 CRI. L. J. 2299 (Allahabad HC).
KISHORI LAL AGARWAL VS. RAM CHANDRA SINDHI.
377. Appeal by the State Government against sentence. -

(1 ) 377(3) - An appeal to Supreme court under article 136 of the constitution is
not the same as a statutory appeal under the code. Supreme Court under
article 136 of the Constitution is not a regular Court of appeal which an accused
can approach as of right. It is an extraordinary jurisdiction which is exercisable
only in exceptional cases when Supreme Court is satisfied that it should
interfere to prevent a grave or serious miscarriage of Justice, as distinguished
from mere error in appreciation of evidence. While exercising this jurisdiction,
Supreme Court is not bound by the rule of procedure as applicable to the
courts below. Supreme Court's jurisdiction under article 136 of the Constitution
is limited only by its own discretion. Section 377( 3) of the code allowing
accused to plead for his complete acquittal in terms does not apply to an
appeal under article 136 of the constitution. However, this would not mean
that Supreme Court will be unmindful of the principles analogous to those
found in the Code including those under Section 377(3 ) of the Code.
2000 CRI. L. J. 5 (SC)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. DHARMENDRA SINGH & ANOTHER.
(2) 377- In an appeal under section 377 of Code for enhancement of
punishment, requirements of section 377(3) must be complied. In the present
case in spite of notice duly served, the accused did not appear. Nor he filed any
appeal against his conviction. As there was no representation on behalf of
accused, the High Court appointed a lawyer as Amicus Curiae. And after
hearing appeal enhanced the punishment awarded under section 302 of IPC
from 10 year to imprisonment for life. Held, the requirements of section 377(3)
was duly complied.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 123; (2018) 18 SCC 388.

BHARATKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA BAROT 🆚 STATE OF GUJARAT.
378. Appeal in case of acquittal. -

(1 ) 378- In a case of Murder, if the reasons given by the trial court for
discarding the testimony of eye witnesses are not sound, then there should be
no hesitation on the part of the High Court in interfering with order of acquittal.
If the judgement of the trial judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous
and based on wrong testimony, it would be proper for the High Court to
interfere and reverse an order of acquittal.
1999 CRI. L. J. 2101. (SC)
K. RAMAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN VS. STATE OF KERALA.
(2) 378- Where two appeals were filed against the judgement of District and
Sessions Judge, one against conviction and other against acquittal of
co-accused. As both the appeals arising out of same judgement, it should be
heard together.
2000 CRI. L. J. 1722 (SC)
KULWANT SINGH 🆚 AMARJIT SINGH & OTHERS
WITH
KULWANT SINGH 🆚 JITENDER SINGH & OTHERS
Criminal Appeal No. -258 of 2000,with Special Leave Petition ( Cri.) No. 511 of
1999.
(3) 378- in appeal against acquittal before High Court accused must be heard
on question of sentence particularly when the high court reversed the
judgement of acquittal into conviction.
2000 CRI. L. J. 4783 (SC)
RAM LAL 🆚 STATE OF RAJASTHAN.

(4) 378-Appeal under Section 378 of Code by State Government or Central
Government, held that appeal should have been filed within 90 days from date
of impugned order and not 60 days as held by High Court.
AIR 2001 SC 2924 ; 2001 CRI. L. J. 4748 (SC) ; 2003 SCC (Cri.) 1012.
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) 🆚 DHARAMPAL.
(5) 378- It is trite law that judgements of acquittal should not be disturb unless
there are substantial are compelling reasons. The substantial or compelling
reasons to discard a judgement of acquittal were examined by this Court in
Ghurey Lal Vs. state of U.P. Which are as follows :-
(i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the fact is palpably wrong;
(ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law:
(iii) The trial court's judgement is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of
Justice";
(iv)The entire approach of the trial court is in dealing with the evidence was
patently illegal;
(v) The trial court's judgement was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
(vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or
has ignored material documents like dying declaration/ report of the ballast
expert etc.
(vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration to
the findings of the trial court.
I f two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal,
the other to conviction- the High Courts or appellate courts must rule in favour
of accused.
(2020) 1 SCC (Cri.) 149 ; (2019) 10 SCC 220.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 🆚 SEPOY PRAVAT KUMAR BEHURIA.
(6) 378- Regarding injuries sustained by the accused person. Held, it is fairly
well settled that it is not always incumbent upon the prosecution to explain the
injuries of the accused persons. The prosecution is obligated to explain the

injuries of the accused persons only if the injuries sustained by the accused are
grievous in nature. Reversal of acquittal by High Court affirmed.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 169 ; (2018) 18 SCC 363.
K. RAVICHANDRA & OTHERS 🆚 STATE OF KARNATAKA.
(7) 378- After referring to various judgements in Chandrappa vs. State of
Karnataka (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325 the Court summarised the general principles
regarding the power of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal
against the order of acquittal and held as under:
(1 ) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider
the evidence under which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or
condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence
before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good
and sufficient Grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions",
"glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an
appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such Phraseologies are more in
the nature of " flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an
appellate Court to to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the
court to review the evidence and to come to its own Conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal,
there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presentation
of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused have secured
his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed
and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded
by the trial court.
The same principle where reiterated in number of judgements namely.
Yogendra Singh vs State of UP, State of UP vs Ram sajivan, Bhaskar Ramappa

Madar vs State of Karnataka, Chandrappa vs State of Karnataka and other
judgements.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 197 ; (2018) 18 SCC 540
MOHINDER SINGH 🆚 STATE OF PUNJAB.
Also see- (2019) SCC (Cri) 345 ; (2019) 4 SCC 739.
SAMPAT BABSO KALE & ANOTHER 🆚 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
386. Power of the Appellate Court. -

(1 ) 386- Appellate Court may direct the accused to be re- tried, not only when
it deals with an appeal against acquittal, but also when it deals with an appeal
against conviction. Under clause (a ) the High Court may reverse the order of
acquittal and direct that further enquiry be made, or the accused may be re-
tried, or may find him guilty and pass sentence thereon. As an appellate Court
the High Court may take further evidence while considering the appeals under
section 391 Cr.P.C, if it is considered necessary, and take additional evidence on
record . High Court may also permit recording of statements under section 313
Cr.P C , if considered necessary.
2020 (1) PLJR (SC) 183
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (IN 2248) ; KANTA DEVI (IN 2247) VS. SHIV CHARAN
BANSAL & ORS. (IN 2248) ; STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. (IN 2247)
Cr. Appeal No. 2248 and 2247 of 2010 (SC)
(2) 386- High Court enhancing sentence in appeal filed by the accused
challenging his conviction . However no notice was given to accused . Held,
High Court could have very well exercise power under section 401 read with
section 386 (3) of the Code and enhance the sentence but this course is
permissible only after giving notice of enhancement .
2019 (2) PLJR 358 (SC). ; (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 758 ; (2019) 6 SCC 166.
KUMAR GHIMIREY VS. STATE OF SIKKIM.

(3) 386- When any Appeal is placed before third judge in view of difference of
opinion between two Judges. It is the duty of the third Judge to appreciate
evidence independently instead of merely stating his consent to the conclusion
arrived by one of the Judges. Held, that the third Jusge has failed to discharge
his duty as appellate Court.
2000 CRI. L. J. 489 (SC)
PADAM SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
2000 CRI. L. J. 384 (SC)
389. Suspension of sentence pending the Appeal; release of

appellant on bail. -
(1 ) 389- Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal against conviction.
High Court not inclined to hear appeal expeditiously . In such circumstances
appellant directed to be released on bail.
1999 CRI. L. J. 2568 (SC).
(2) 389- section 32- A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (61 of
1985) has overriding effect on power of suspension commutation and remission
provided under the Cr.P.C .
1999 CRI. L. J. 1825 (SC)
MAKTOOL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB.
(3) 389- While granting bail during pendency of appeal under section 389,
recording of reasons is mandatory. Criminal background of accused must be
considered while granting bail.

(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 262; (2019) 8 SCC 13.
VINOD SINGH NEGI 🆚 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
391. Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to

be taken. -
(1 ) 391- When statute grants right to appeal to an accused, he has right to
take all steps and take benefit of all power of appellate court in the end of the
Justice.
2019 (1) PLJR (SC) 462.
BRIGADIER SUKHJEET SINGH (RETD.) MVC VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
Criminal appeal no. - 148 of 2019
Chapter XXX
Reference and revision

395. Reference to High Court.-
396 Disposal of case according to decision of high court. -
397 Calling for records to exercise power of revision. -
(1 ) 397- Revision can be filed against acquittal .
1985 BBCJ 386
(2 ) 397- In spite of bar against second revision the High Court may interfere to
check miscarriage of Justice.
[ 1997 (1) East Cr. C 643 (SC)
(3 ) 397- Revision against acquittal. Nothing on record to show that summons
was ever served upon any of the witnesses either official or non-official
including the informant . Warrant of arrest issued against the witness, never
executed. Learned trial court committed a procedural irregularity for closing
the prosecution evidence, the learned trial court was obliged to see that
summons, in fact ,were actually served upon the witnesses , which has not been

done in the present case impugned judgement set aside and the sessions case
remitted back to the learner trial court for denovo trial.
2013 (4) BBCJ V 572
VIKASH KUMAR THAKUR VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
(4 ) 397- Order summoning the accused under section 204 of Code on a
complaint , after examination of complainant and witnesses is not an
interlocutory order under section 397 (2) of the Code.
IV (1996) CCR 523 (DB)
(5) 397- The revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code could be
exercised against the order directing issuance of process under section 204 of
Code. As it must be held to be intermediate or quasi final.
1999 CRI. L. J. 1620 (SC)
RAJENDRA KUMAR SITARAM PANDE AND OTHERS VS. UTTAM AND ANOTHER.
Cri. Application No. 376 of 1994, dated 24-8-1994 (Bombay), Reversed.
(6) 397- The expression ' 'interlocutory order' in section 397 (2) has been used
in a restricted sense and not in a broad or artistic sense and merely denotes
orders of purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the
important right or liabilities of the parties and any other order which
subsequently affects the right of the parties cannot be said to be an inter
'interlocutory order. '
AIR 1977 SC 2185.
AMAR NATH VS. STATE OF HARYANA.
(7) 397- An order rejecting the plea of accused on a point which when accepted
will conclude the particular proceeding cannot be held to be an interlocutory
order.
AIR 1978 SC 47.
MADHU LIMAYE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
(8) 397- The term 'interlocutory order' used in the code of criminal procedure
has to be given a very liberal construction in favour of the accused in order to
ensure complete fairness of the trial and the revisional power of the High Court

or the Sessions Judge could be attracted if the order was not purely
interlocutory but intermediate or quasi final.
AIR 1980 SC 962.
V. C. SHUKLA VS. STATE
(9) 397- Revision against suspension of operation of order under section 144 of
the Code, on the expiration of two month revision becomes infructuous.
1969 Cri. L. J. 575l.
(9) 397- Order directing issuance of process under section 204 of the Code, is
not a purely interlocutory order. Therefore bar under section 397 (2 ) is not
applicable .
1999 CRI. L. J. 1620. (SC)
RAJENDRA KUMAR SITARAM PANDE AND OTHERS VS. UTTAM AND ANOTHER.
(10) 397(2) - Petition for discharge of police officer on ground that no sanction
was obtained to prosecute them , is a interlocutory order under section 397(2)
of the Cr.P. C.?
Held, the feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a
party, would it result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on
such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in
section 397(2) of the Code. In the above question if the objection raised where
up held by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been
terminated. Hence as per the the said standard the order was revisable.
2000 CRI. L. J. 4592 (SC)
K. K. PATEL & ANOTHER 🆚 STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER.
(11) 397- If any adverse order is passed by the Revisional Court, without issuing
notice to the respondent, such order is set aside and remitted back for fresh
consideration.
(2020) 1 SCC (Cri.) 94 ; (2019) 10 SCC 686.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 🆚 ARVIND KHANNA.

(12) 397- High Court dismissing the revision petition on the basis, to first
approach the Sessions Judge. Held: (i)that the present case was almost 16 years
old and (ii) that the court must provide speedy justice as a matter of
constitutional right, issue regarding choice of Jurisdiction under section 397 of
the Code, not gone into and left open, by setting aside the High Court's order,
and matter remitted to High Court for decision on merits.
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 214 ; (2019) 3 SCC 193.
CHANDER BHAN SINGH 🆚 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.
399. Sessions judge's powers of revision. -

See section 401 .
401. High court's power of revision. -

(1 ) 401- Sub-Section 3 of section 401 mandate that the high court shall not
convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction . Thus the high court would
not be justified in substituting an order of acquittal into one of conviction even
if it is convinced that the accused deserves conviction. The only course that left
to the High Court is to order retrial.
1999 CRI. L. J. 16. (SC).
VIMAL SINGH VS. KHUMAN SINGH AND ANOTHER.
(2) 401- High Court while acquitting accused under section 464 of the IPC, has
no jurisdiction to direct that, accused must be deemed to have been in
continuous service without break and he should be paid his full pay and
allowances during the period of his suspension.
1999 CRI . L. J. 1830. (SC)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RANJIT SINGH
(3) 401- High Court while dismissing the revision ex Parte, the least that is
expected is that the High Court will apply its judicial mind to the factual and

legal aspects arising in the case and then pass appropriate order either for
upholding the conviction for acquitting the accused as the case may be.
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 343 ; (2019) 4 SCC 633.
HARVEER SINGH 🆚 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
(4) 401- Held, while considering petition for discharge in revision courts cannot
act as appellate court and start appreciating evidence by finding out in
consistencies in statements of witnesses. Consideration of record for discharge
purpose is different from consideration of record while deciding appeal. On
facts High Court acted as appellate Court while exercising revisionary
jurisdiction. Hence discharge order set aside.
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 31 ; (2019) 4 SCC 149.
🆚
STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPRINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE &
ANTI-CORRUPTION, TAMIL NADU J. DORAISWAMY & OTHERS.
CHAPTER XXXI
Transfer of criminal cases
406. Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals. -
(1 ) 406- A transfer petition was filed to transfer the case from the State of
Himachal Pradesh to any other state on the following grounds:- (1) that there is
an immense threat to the life and security of the petitioner in Shimla (2) the
lawyers associations of the entire state of Himachal Pradesh have decided not
to take up the petitioners case (3) they have also decided not to permit and
outsider Council to defend the petitioner. (4) That there is a general agitation in
the State of Himachal Pradesh against the petitioner. (5) that the proceedings
are under local media trial.
On the facts that, Court appointed the learned Advocate at the
expense of State, Charges framed, out of 114 prosecution witnesses, 33 already
examined, trial fixed on day-to-day basis, and an Advocate has also filed
vakalatnama for accused.
Held, no jurisdiction for transfer of case. And petition dismissed.

(2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 880 ; (2019) 12 SCC 303.
CHANDER SHARMA ALIAS KAKU & ANOTHER 🆚 STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
Transfer Petition (Crl) No. -67 of 2017.
Chapter XXXII
Execution, suspension, remission and commutation of
sentences
A.- Death Sentences
413. Execution of order passed under section 368.-
B.-Imprisonment
417. power to appoint place of imprisonment. -
C.-Levy of fine
421.Warrant for levy of fine. -
D.-General provision regarding execution
425. Who may issue warrant. -
427. sentence on offender already sentenced for another
offence. -
(1 ) 427- Tow sections of the code i. e section 31 and 427 speaks of consecutive
and concurrent running of sentence. Section 31 deals with cases where a
person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences. Similar discretion is
available in section 427 which deals with cases where a person already
undergoing a sentence and again sentenced for an offence in subsequent trial.
Sections 31 and 427 of the code which deals with subsequent sentence
and empowers the court to direct concurrent running of more than one
sentences, no such specification is available in section 64 of IPC and in Section
30 of the court or in any other provision dealing with the power to impose

sentence of imprisonment for non payment of fine or in connection with default
sentence . Held, default sentences, cannot be directed to run concurrently.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 419; (2018) 18 SCC 718.
(2)427- "para 18- we make it clear that the discretion regarding concurrent
running of sentence shall be limited to the substantive sentence only. The
sentence which the appellant has been directed to undergo in default of
payment of fine /compensation shall not be affected by this discretion. we do
so because the provisions of section 427 Cr. P. C do not, in our opinion, permit a
directions for the concurrent running of the substantive sentence with sentence
awarded in default of payment of fine/ compensation."
(2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 282
V. K. BANSAL 🆚 STATE OF HARYANA.
428. Period of detention undergone by the accused to be set

off against the sentence of imprisonment. -
(1 ) 428- Under section 428 of the Code, the period undergone during
investigation, inquiry or trial has to be set off against subjective sentence but
not against default sentence.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 419; (2018) 18 SCC 718.
429. Saving. -
(1 ) 429- Under section 429 (2), in cases where two or more substantive
sentences are to be undergone one after the other, the default sentence, if
awarded, would not begin to run till the substantive sentences are over.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 419; (2018) 18 SCC 718.

E. -Suspension, remission and commutation of sentences
432. Power to suspend Or remit sentence. -
(1) 432- section 32- A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (61 of
1985) has overriding effect on power of suspension commutation and remission
provided under the Cr.P.C .
1999 CRI. L. J. 1825 (SC)
MAKTOOL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB.
(2) 432- Life imprisonment means imprisonment for whole of the remaining
period of convict's life.
Certain guidelines issued by the Court as to the basis on which a convict
can be released prematurely are as under:-
"1. Whether the offence is an individual act of crime without affecting the
society at large.
2. Whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining of this Convict anymore.
3. Whether there is any chance of future reoccurrence of committing crime.
4. Whether the Convict has lost his potentiality in committing crime.
5. Socio- Economic condition of the convict's family. "
Life Convict not entitled to be released on completing 20 years of
imprisonment unless government remits the entire balance sentence.
2000 CRI. L. J. 4017 (SC)
LIFE CONVICT LAXMAN NASKAR 🆚 STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER.
(3) 432- Power to grant commutation or remission of sentence is exclusively
vested in appropriate government. Court cannot usurp set power. Grant or non
- grant of remission is prerogative to be exercised by competent authority and
it is not for Court to supplant its view. Premature release is not a matter of
privilege but is power coupled with duty conferred on appropriate government
in terms of section 432 and 433 of the Code.

If earlier prayer for remission or premature release is not granted.
Subsequent prayer for the same can be considered in changed circumstances
and passage of time.
(2020) 1 SCC (Cri.) 219 ; (2019) 14 SCC 114.
RANJAN 🆚 HOME SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND
OTHERS.
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. -321 of 2018.
433. Power to commute sentence. -

(1 ) 433- Powers under section 433 of the Code to commute sentence
can only be exercised by the the appropriate Government. These
powers cannot be exercised by any Court including Supreme Court. At
best the court can recommend to the state Government that such power
may be exercised but the power of the appropriate Government cannot
be usurped by the courts and the Government cannot be directed to
pass 'formal compliance order'.
🆚
2019 (4) PLJR 174 (SC)
RAJ KUMAR THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
433 A. Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in
certain cases. -
(1 ) 433 A- If the case of life convict falls within the purview of section 433- A of
the Code. It will be put up for Governor's order under Article 161 of the
Constitution. In such condition Law prevailing on the date of production before
Governor will be relevant and not the law prevailing on the date of conviction.
1999 CRI. L. J. 4299. (SC)
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS VS. BALWAN. WITH SOM NATH. WITH
RAMCHANDER AND OTHERS. AND WITH RAJ KUMAR.
Criminal Appeal Nos. -9, 10,1001-1010 of 1998.
Chapter XXXIII
Provisions as to bail and bonds

436. In what cases bail to be taken. -
437. When bail may be taken in case of non- bailable offence.
-
(1 )437- Magistrate must generally refrain from considering application under
section 437 of the code , when offence is punishable under death or
imprisonment for life, viz. Section 302 of IPC . Magistrate however exercising
power under section 437 of the code and enlarging murder accused on bail
merely on ground that he was initially granted bail for minor offence, is not
proper. Minor offence altered for an aggravated crime punishable under
Section 302 disentitle accused to liberty of being released on bail granted to
him in relation to minor offence .
2001 CRI. L. J. 1730 (SC)
PRAHLAD SINGH BHATI VS. N. C. T DELHI.
Cri. Mise. (M) No. 3262 of 2000.
(2) 437- Magistrate does not lose jurisdiction to grant bail to such an accused
against whom he has taken cognizance under non bailable offence, provided
that offence does not fall within those categories where section 437 of the Code
prohibits granting of regular bail by Magistrate.
2015 (3) BBCJ V -53 (Patna HC).
SALIM ANSARI @ MD. SALIM VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
(3) 437- When an accused person appears in a trial after having been served
the summon, after the trial court has taken cognizance of the offence in the
complaint , normally the accused should be enlarged on bail. If the trial court
after taking cognizance in a private complaint, issues bailable arrest warrant
even with respect to alleged commission of non bailable offence, the accused
should be enlarged on bail unless denial of bail is clearly warranted in the facts
of the case. In serious and heinous offences where on well established legal
norms and parameters, denial of bail is a rule , the accused should not be
enlarged on bail, but with respect to search officers which are neither serious
nor heinous such as cases which are in the realm of either civil disputes (and
where cognizance has wrongly been taken) or such minor offences where
punishment may not be death sentence/ life term/over seven years

imprisonment, on date the accused appears in execution of the process against
him, his bail bond should be accepted.
(4) 437- Just because the police report or the private complaint carries with it
the label of Section 498 A of the IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
1961. It does not mean that the accused should be denied bail. In cases where
on account of ordinary matrimonial disputes or due to some discordant note
in a matrimonial relationship, machinery of law is set in motion by invoking
Section 498 A or Section 4, the court should be circumspect and careful while
considering the question of grant /refusal of bail. Bail should be refused only
when the allegations are serious and genuine . Court should also find out
whether a particular person had any role to play in the transaction/ occurrence
and whether there are any probabilities of his having played such a role, regard
being had to the relationship of such an accused with the main parties. Court
should assess the contents of police report / complaint , the nature of
allegations, the supporting proof and documents before recording a conclusive
finding on the issue of bail . Grant of bill should be rule where the prosecution
de facto complainant or informant try to unnecessarily harass the accused and
jeopardise their interest .
2001 (2) JLJR -78
BIRENDRA JHA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND.
ABP NO. 4654 of 2001.
(5) 437- the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui is directed to conduct an
enquiry regarding age of the victim after informing both the parties as well as
directing the victim to be physically present for that purpose . In case the victim
is found above 18 years then in that event it will release the petitioner on bail
till then the victim, on account of considering the statement under section 164
of the Code, is to be kept at remand home, so that see be out of influence of
either of the party.
BAMBAM RAO @ BAMBAN RAWAT VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.

-
(1 ) 438- Charge- Sheet submitted under section 341,323,504 of the IPC and all
the sections being bailable, bail granted by the police itself. Cognizance taken

under section 307 of IPC . Anticipatory bail application is not maintainable on
behalf of the persons who have been allowed Police bail Or bail by a Magistrate
. Petitioner directed to surrender and pray for bail and learned Magistrate
directed to dispose of the same keeping in view the principle that a person
already on bail shall not be denied such privilege ,unless there is allegation of
misuse.
2007 (4) BBCJ V - 66 (Patna HC).
SHEO CHANDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Case Referred - 2004 (3) PLJR 491.
(2) 438- High Court, considering the nature of the allegation refusing
anticipatory bail, however, giving direction that in the event accused surrenders
before the SDJM, and movers an application for bail, he shall be released on
bail on search terms and conditions as Magistrate deems fit and proper .
Rejection of the application for anticipatory bail, by the High Court, was
sufficient indication that the high court, thought it fit not to put a fetter on the
investigating Agency's power to arrest accused . When the High Court in
categorical terms expressed the view that it is not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to accused, it would not have issued such direction which
would tantamount to conterment of benefit by which the accused would be in
a position to avoid arrest. It is in clear violation of the language employed in
the statutory provision and overlooks the scope and purpose of section 438
and 439 of the code. Such orders put restriction on the power of the trial court
to consider the bail application on merits and grant or reject prayer for bail.
After rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail, the High Court should not have
negated its own order by directing that accused should be released on bail . It
dilutes the order rejecting anticipatory bail. Such order is not legally sound and
have no sanctity.
2014 (1) PLJR (SC) 551.
SUDAMA CHARAN DAS VS. STATE OF ORISSA.
Relied upon- (2012) 5 SCC 690 ; 2012 (3) PLJR (SC) 40 ; 2012 (2) JLJR (SC) 432.
***(3) 438- Anticipatory bail has been granted for a limited period, till
submission of charge sheet, petitioner has to again make a fresh prayer for
regular bail because the first pre-requisite for grant of anticipatory bail must

not have been arrested or surrendered Before any court is not available and he
is left with no option.
2011 (1) PLJR 731.
BISHUNDEO SAHI VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal Mise. No. - 1257, 2875, 21131 of 2010.
(4) 438- second anticipatory bail application. Held, grant of anticipatory bail for
a limited period till submission of charge-sheet . Since accused has already
surrendered before Court below for grant of anticipatory bail and has exicuted
bail Bond, as such at his instance another anticipatory bail application cannot
be maintainable. He has to surrender and pray for regular bail under section
438. However, court instead of taking him into custody, considering the earlier
anticipatory bail order and his conduct will grant him bail.
2011 (1) PLJR 731.
BISHUNDEO SAHI VS. STATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal Mise. No. - 1257, 2875, 21131 of 2010.
(5) 438- Anticipatory bail cannot be granted for Limited period . Accused
released on anticipatory bail cannot be compelled to surrender before trial
court and again apply for regular bail. It is contrary to the spirit of section 438
of the Code and also amounts to deprivation of his personal liberty. Ordinary,
benefit of grant of anticipatory bail should continue till end of trial of that case,
unless bail is cancelled on fresh circumstances .
AIR 2011 SC 312.
SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
OTHERS.
(6) 438- Purpose of incorporation of section 438 (anticipatory bail ) is
presumption of innocence of an accused until he is found guilty.
Section 438 is need not be invoked only in exceptional or rear cases .
Discretion must be exercised on basis of available material and facts of
particular case. Accused has joined investigation and he is fully cooperating
with investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial
interrogation should be avoided.

AIR 2011 SC 312.
SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
OTHERS.
(7) under article 32 of the Constitution of India .Supreme Court directly granted
bail to accused in group of cases registered or likely to be registered in different
states arising out of same transaction in connection with "Grand Venice"
Project.
(2020) 1SCC (Cri) 121 ; (2019) 10 SCC 800.
SATENDER SINGH BHASIN 🆚 GOVERNMENT (NCT OF DELHI) AND OTHERS.
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. -242 of 2019.
(8) 438- For anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code and bar created on
anticipatory bail under section 76(2) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016.
See- 2019 (2) PLJR 1089 (Patna HC)
RAM VINAY YADAV 🆚 THE STATE OF BIHAR
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 431 of 2019
439. Special powers of High Court or Court of session

regarding bail. -
(1 ) 439- Rejection of bail application on earlier occasion , does not stand as bar
to consider subsequent application for bail.
IV (1996) CCR 337.
(2 ) 439- High Court overlooked distinction of factors relevant for rejecting bail
at initial stage and cancelling bail once granted . Cancellation of bail done in
mechanical manner is not sustainable.
(1995) 1 SCC 349 ; 1995 SCC (Cri) 237.
(3 ) 439- Accused released on bail for offence under section 323 , 324 , 504 of
IPC . Subsequently charge-sheet was submitted as under section 326 of IPC.
Held earlier offence being bailable accused was granted bail as of right and
that too in absence of injury report , supplementary report and X-ray report.

Fresh offence being serious one accused cannot be permitted to continue on
same bail Bond and will have to apply for fresh bail.
2002 Cri. L. J 3646 (Allahabad H. C).
(4 ) 439- There is no absolute rule that once bail is granted then it can only be
cancelled if there is likelihood of misuse of bail. If there are very serious
allegations against accused his bail may be cancelled even if he has not miss
used it .
2011 (3) BLJ 46. (SC)
PRAKASH KADAM VS. RAMPRASAD VISHWANATH GUPTA.
Case referred - (1984) 1 SCC 284 ; (1995) 1 SCC 349 ; (2004) 13 SCC 617.
(5) 439- Criminal antecedent of accused cannot be ignored. High Court granted
bail without taking into consideration relevant factor including criminal
antecedent of the accused. Order of High Court granting bail to accused solely
on basis of parity, set aside.
2015 Cri. L. J 4862 (SC)
NEERU YADAV VS. STATE OF UTTER PRADESH.
(6) 439- Petition for cancellation of bail granted for offence of carrying fake
Indian currency. Though offence punishable up to 7 years, bail was taken on a
wrong submission that the instant offence is punishable up to 3 years .
Moreover, the case was launched by Union of India and was neither given an
opportunity to oppose the prayer of bail nor was made party in the application
for bail. Bail granted was cancelled.
2016 (1) BBCJ V - 575
THE UNION OF INDIA VS. MANOJ SAH.
(7) 439- Accused can directly file a regular bail petition before sessions court or
High Court without getting its bail rejected from the Magistrate. He can directly
surrender in sessions court or High Court and pray for his bail.
SUNDEEP KUMAR BAFRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

(8) 439- General presumption of Innocence of accused is not applicable to cases
where there is countries statutory presumption of his guilt , such as when
prosecuted under section 3, 5, 7 and 9 of POCSO Act 2012.
(2017) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 ; (2017) 2 SCC 178.
STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAJBALLAV PRASAD @ RAJBALLAV PRASAD YADAV.
(9) 439- Accused can pray for bail as and when he intends to file application for
bail. But High Court cannot prevent accused for certain period, from exercising
his right to be released on bail by filing application for bail. High Court may
reject such prayer.
1999 CRI. L. J. 5006. (SC)
MANJOOR KHAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER.
(10) 439- Accused released pursuant to wrong order passed in bail. Trial Court
recalled said order of granting bail and after rectification of mistake, directed
to bring accused in custody. Held, accused must be given opportunity of
hearing before rectification.
2000 CRI. L. J. 4046 (SC)
RAJENDRA PRASAD ARYA 🆚 STATE OF BIHAR.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. - 3063 of 1999.
(11) 439- Accused is entitled to hearing before bail is cancelled. Report of
process server that, accused refused to accept notice is not sufficient proof of
service of notice.
2000 CRI. L. J. 4686 (SC)
GURDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER 🆚 STATE OF BIHAR.
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. -4178 of 1999.
(12) 439- Habeas Corpus petition under article 32 directly even in case of
remand by Judicial Magistrate is maintainable.
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 881;(2019) 6 SCC 619.
JAGISHA ARORA 🆚 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.

Writ Petition (Cri) No.- 164 of 2019.
(13) Sushila Agarwal vs Delhi.
444. Discharge of sureties. -

(1 ) 444- Surety not absolved from his liability by alteration of the condition by
Magistrate to effect that accused was permitted to reside in another city. Bail
-Bond does not stand discharged with alteration of condition.
2000 CRI. L. J. 165 (SC)
MOHAMMED KUNJU & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA.
446. Procedure when bond has been forfeited. -

(1 ) 446 (3) - If there is no allegation against surety that he has connived with
accused jumping out the bail. In such circumstances remission granted. Each of
surety held liable to pay rupees 5000/- instead of rupees 25000/- as penalty.
2000 CRI. L. J. 165 (SC)
449. Appeal from orders under section 446.-

(1 ) 449 (ii) - Appeal from order passed under section 446 of the Code, by chief
Judicial Magistrate . Appeal before Sessions Judge is maintainable, no second
appeal would lie before High Court .
2000 CRI. L. J. 165 (SC)
Chapter XXXIV
Disposal of property
451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial
in certain cases. -

(1 ) 451- Seized Lorry should be given to registered owner and not to the person
from whom seized.
1983 CRI. L. J. 1584.
(2) 451- truck with liquor seized by police due to contravention of provisions of
Uttar Pradesh Excise Act . Release of the truck cannot be refused on the ground
that matter is pending in trial.
I (1997) CCR 366 (Allahabad HC).
(3) 451- A truck which was in police custody, was registered in name of
applicant and same was alleged to be sold to opposite party under a
agreement, but execution of sale not held. A complaint for cheating under
section 420 of IPC was also filed . Position though was given to opposite party,
but taken back by the applicant. Held , that the the release of truck in favour of
applicant cannot be refused on the ground, that the full installments of the loan
was not paid by the applicant .
III (1996) CCR 39 (Allahabad HC).
(4) 451- C. J. M ordering for release in favour of the o.p on the basis of
document of registration of the vehicle passed by the District Transport Officer.
Subsequently registration cancelled on the ground of production of forged
documents , on petition filed by the petitioner who was claimant from before
the CJM . CJM recalled his earlier order and passed order in favour of petitioner.
In revision Session Judge set aside the second order on the ground of lack of
Jurisdiction by the Magistrate to cancel or rescin his earlier order . For release
of the vehicle a criminal court has to enquire first of all whether the claimant
for interrim custody is registered owner entitled to use the vehicle. Order
passed being a temporary arrangement only to protect or preserve the
property and interlocutory in nature and revision filed before sessions judge
was not maintainable . Order of seasons just quashed .
BBCJ (1993) 436.
452.Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial. -

(1 ) 452-An order under section 452 is not an order determining title or
ownership but that of the right to possession, and therefore, where serious
claims to ownership are put forward, it would be best if the Criminal Court
directs the parties to establish their claim before the Civil Court. However, the

Criminal Court can pass appropriate order of interim nature as may be
appropriate.
MAHARASHTRA.
456. Power to restore possession of immovable property. -

(1 ) 456- Trial court while convicting the accused passed an order directing
restoration of the property to the complainant . There is no other case property
accept a property whose position was forcibly taken by accused, therefore no
separate order was required directing restoration of position. If the Court trying
the offence has not made such an order, the court of appeal, confirmation or
revision can also make such an order while disposing of the the proceeding
pending before it. No limitation is provided for the Higher Court to make such
order. Limitation of 30 days would not apply, as it would apply only if the trial
court had not passed any order in respect of the case property while convicting
the accused.
2019 (1) PLJR 626 (SC) ; (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 35 ; (2019) 4 SCC 160.
MAHESH DUBE VS. SHIVBODH AND ORS.
457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property. -

(1 ) 457- Section 457 applies when a property has been seized by any police
officer and is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of the Code and
such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during the course of
inquiry or trial. The expression 'not produced before a Criminal Court' used in
Section 457 of the Code is significant. Thus, this provision applies to the
property seized under section 102 of the Code, but not produced during the trial
or inquiry. In common parlance, the word 'produced' is an expression used to
signify actual or physical production which would apply to moveable property.
Immovable property cannot be 'produced' in a Court.
MAHARASHTRA.

hapter XXXV
C
Irregular proceedings
460. Irregularities which do not vitiate proceedings. -
(1 ) 460- Error, omission or irregularity in proceedings and trial does not vitiate ,
unless failure of justice would appear or objection raised at earlier stage.
2006 CRI. L. J. 1121 ; (2006) 2 SCC 450 ; AIR 2006 SC 951.
RADHA MOHAN VS. STATE *
(2001) 2 SCC 577.
SHAMAN SAHEB VS. STATE
461. Irregularities which vitiate proceedings. -

462. Proceedings in wrong place. -
463. Non- compliance with provisions of section 164 or
section 281.-
(1 ) 463- Omission to obtain signature of accused at the end of the confession,
would not make it inadmissible as it is curable defect under section 463 of the
code.
1999 CRI. L. J. 3124 (SC).
464. Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in,

charge. -
(1 ) 464- Omission to frame charge, no prejudice shown to have been caused to
accused. It does not affect their conviction .
1999 CRI. L. J. 1134
KAMMARI BRAHMAIAH & OTHERS VS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
ANDHRA PRADESH.

(2) 464- Defect in framing charge. Object of charge is to give accused notice of
matter is charged with and does not touch jurisdiction . If necessary
information is covered to him in other ways and there is no prejudice , framing
of charge is not invalidated. Charge should be precise in its scope and particular
in its detail. Essential part of law is not any technical formula of words, but the
reality whether matter was explain to accused and whether he understood
what he was being tried for. Code is devised to subserve ends of justice and
not to frustrate them by Mere technicalities.
2011 (4) BLJ SC - 161.
SANTOSH KUMAR VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR.
(3) 464- Omission, or error in framing charge .effect of . Need of accused to
show failure of Justice /prejudice occasioned thereby. Failure to frame charge
under section 147 IPC against some of the accused, is immaterial.
(2019) 3 S. C. C (Cri) 886. ; (2019) 9 S. C. C 549.; 2019 (4) PLJR (SC) 412.
FAINUL KHAN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND.
Also see- section 313.
465. Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error,

omission or irregularity. -
(1 ) 465- Absence of sanction or invalid sanction to prosecute public servant,
cannot be a ground to set aside conviction and sentence for the offence under
Prevention of Corruption Act 1947.
1999 CRI. L. J. 4593 (SC)
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. V. K. SEHGAL AND ANOTHER.
WITH
STATE OF HARYANA VS. V. K. SEHGAL.
(2) 465- Objection as to omission to examine witnesses, not taken by accused
before process was issued by Magistrate. Omission cannot be said to have

occasioned any failure of justice. Objection that committal order was invalid
cannot be raised for first time at feg end of sessions trial.
2000 CRI. L. J. 930. (SC)
ROSY & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS.
Criminal Appeal Nos. -18-19 of 2000
Chapter XXXVI
Limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences
467. Definition. -
468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of
limitation. -
(1 ) 468- For computing period of limitation, relevant date is the date of filing of
complaint or initiating criminal proceeding and not the date of taking
cognizance by Magistrate or issuance of process by Court.
2008 (1) BBCJ IV 78 (SC)
JAPANI SAHOO VS. CHANDRA SEKHAR MOHANTY.
(2) 468- Date relevant for computation of period of limitation under section 468
of the Code is the date when criminal complaint is filed or date of Institution of
prosecution/ criminal proceedings, and not the date when a court /Magistrate
takes cognizance.
(2014) 2 SCC 62.
SARAH MATHEW VS. INSTITUTE OF CARDIO VASCULAR DISEASES BY ITS
DIRECTOR DR. K. M. CHERIA AND OTHERS.
With
HT MEDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS VS. STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI)

SLPs (Crl.) Nos. -5687-88 of 2013
With

HINDUSTAN MEDIA VENTURE LIMITED AND OTHERS VS. STATE (GOVERNMENT
OF NCT OF DELHI)
SPL(Crl.) No. 5764 of 2013.
(3) 468 (3) - limitation provided under section 468 of the code is in respect of
offence charge and not offence finally proved .
2000 CRI. L. J. 485 (SC)
472. Continuing offence. -

(1 ) 472- Offence of cruelty under Section 498 A of IPC is a continuing offence.
1999 CRI. L. J 3479 (SC).
ARUN VYAS AND ANOTHER VS. ANITA VYAS
473. Extension of period of limitation in certain cases. -

(1 ) 473- Order of condonation of delay is maintainable before taking
cognizance of offence , in exercise of power under section 473 of the Code.
IV (1996) CCR 267.
(2 ) 473- Order of taking cognizance after expiry of period of limitation is liable
to be quashed.
BLJ 1996 (1) 403.
(3 ) 473- Cruelty by husband or his relative under Section 498 -A of IPC is
continuing offence . New starting point of limitation starts on last act of cruelty
. Wife harassed and sent out of matrimonial house. Complaint even if time
bared , can be entertained if it gives unfair advantage to accused husband or
results in miscarriage of Justice.
1999 CRI. L. J 3479 (SC).
ARUN VYAS AND ANOTHER VS. ANITA VYAS

(4) 473- Delay in filing complaint under Section 498 -A of IPC, not to be given
undue importance, because of status of married women and several other
factor .
(1997) BLJR 827 (Patna H. C)
(5) 473- Taking cognizance in absence of speaking positive order to
Condonation after expiry of limitation under section 473 of the Code. Cannot be
deemed to have taken cognizance by condoning delay when cognizance was
barred.
2000 CRI. L. J. 485. (SC)
(6) 473- Complaint was filed with explanation of delay of 25 days, after expiry
of period of limitation. Held, Complainant is entitled to extension of limitation
under section 473 of the Code. And accused are not entitled to be discharged
under section 245 of Code on ground of delay in filing complaint.
2000 CRI. L. J. 3973 (SC)
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN 🆚 STATE THROUGH CBI, NEW DELHI.
482. Saving of inherent power of High Court. -

(1 ) 482- There are three circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may
be exercised (I) to give effect to an order under the Code (ii) to prevent abuse
of the process of court and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of Justice.
Inherent jurisdiction under section 482 though wide has to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution.
2020(1) PLJR (SC) 109
🆚
BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED (IN 875); BIRLA BUILDING LIMTED (IN 877);
GVIND PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. (IN 876) . ADVNTZ INVESMETS AN HOLINGS
LIMITED & ORS.(IN 875); BRL CRORTIO IMITED (IN 876, 877)
Cr. Appeal No. 875, 877 & 876 of 2019 (SC)

(2 ) 482- Execution of sale deed cannot be said to be making a false document
as contemplated by section 464 of the Indian penal Code, unless it was covered
by any classes of section 464, and the document of sale deed cannot be said to
be forged document . Its possession also cannot be said to be possession of a
forged document with intention to use the same as genuine. Hence, such
complaint case , even if it was taken on it face value to be correct , did not
make out a case punishable under section 467 , 468 , 474 read with sector 120
- B of Indian Penal Code.
BLJ 1997 (1) 239
(3) 482- Complaint alleging that, accused committed criminal beach of trust by
transferring shares of Complainant fraudulently. No specific allegation against
accused . Held, dispute rising is purely of civil nature . Criminal proceedings
quashed.
1999 CRI. L. J. 4371 (Patna HC).
RAMESH KUMAR VERMA 🆚. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
Criminal Miscellaneous No. -6424 of 1993. With Criminal Miscellaneous No.
-1031 of 1994.
M. SURESH 🆚 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH.
And also see- (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 762 ; (2019) 2 SCC 401.
VINOD NATESAN 🆚 STATE OF KERALA
(4) 482- Section 482 of the Code read with section 379 of the Indian Penal
Code and second 39, 44 and 152 (2) (3) of the Bihar Electricity Act. Section 379
I. P. C is not applicable in case of theft of electricity . Beside the amount
assessed having been accepted and there beeing statutory compounding of
the offence. The proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the court .
Prosecution quashed .
2007 (3) BBCJ V- 230 (Patna HC).
K. N. RAM @ KEDAR NATH RAM 🆚 STATE OF BIHAR

(5) 482- Assault and abuse by police personal. Documents showing that
complaint has been filed merely for harassing law enforcement agency for
having a taken action against illegal mining. Order of cognizance quashed.
2015 (3) BBCJ V - 159 (Patna HC).
SHIVDEEP WAMAN RAO LANDE 🆚 STATE OF BIHAR.
(6) 482- Allegation levelled against the accused person of preparing forged sale
deed . Allegations levelled in the complaint /protest petition constitute only a
civil wrong and not a criminal wrong. Petitioner cannot be permitted to be
harassed, impugned order in complaint and the criminal proceedings in
emanating set aside.
2017 (4) BBCJ V- 428.
MD. MUKHTAR QUARAISHI 🆚. STATE OF BIHAR.
Relied upon- ( 2006) SCC 736 ; (2011) 3SCC (CRI) 23 .
(7) 482- Challenge of summons issued against petitioners taking a plea, that
subject matter of the criminal proceeding is already under challenge before
Civil and Criminal Court complaint . Petition discloses commission of cognizable
offence . There is no bar to continue criminal proceeding during pendency of
civil proceeding, possibility of conflicting decisions in Civil and criminal courts
cannot be considered as relevant consideration for a stay of any one of the two
preceding. No statuary or legal principal is there that finding of court either in
civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while
dealing with the same subject matter and both the cases have to be decided
on the basis of evidence adduced there in.
KUMAR NEERAJ AND ORS. 🆚. STATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. - 22077 and 22489 of 2014.
(8) 482- Bihar Minor Mineral concession rules 1972 . Rule 4 , 26-A and 4O
(1).FIR registered for running a brick kiln without obtaining mining lease and
paying royalty to the state. No prosecution for an offence under the rule can
be lodged without a written complaint. It bars the Court from taking
cognizance of the office under the provisions of the rule, unless complaint is
made in writing to the Court by a competent officer empowered by the

Government. A police report cannot be made a basis for the court to take
cognizance of an offence under the provisions of the rules .
2019 (2) PLJR 21 (Patna HC)
SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA 🆚. STATE OF BIHAR.
Cr. W. J. C. No. - 895 of 2016.Bihari
(9) 482- Under the Criminal Procedure Code, specific provisions for awarding
costs are only under section 148 (3), 342 and 359. At the same time there is no
specific bar that in no other case cost would be awarded while exercising
inherent jurisdiction under section 482 , Court has power to pass such orders
(not inconsistent with any provisions of the code) including the order for costs
in appropriate cases, (i )to give effect to any order passed under the cock code
or second cost maybe to meet the litigation expenses for can be exemplary to
achieve the aforesaid purposes.
1999 CRI. L. J. 3513.
MARY ANGEL AND OTHERS 🆚. STATE OF TAMIL NADU.
(10) 482- Where proceeding under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act
was already pending and subsequent complaint under section 406 and 420 of
IPC was file against same accused and no indication of any corrupt practice by
accused was there in subsequent complaint. Prosecution against accused
under section 406 and 420 of IPC was quashed.
2000 CRI. L. J. 824 (SC)
G. SAGAR SURI & ANOTHER 🆚. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS.
(11) 482- Complaint cannot be quashed merely on grounds that civil remedy is
available .
2000 CRI. L. J. 1487 (SC)
M/S MEDCHL CHEMICALS AND PHARMACY PVT. LTD. 🆚 M/S BIOLOGICAL E.
LTD. AND OTHERS.

(12) 482- Allegation bought by the complainant against the accused is that, on
false promise of marrying her the accused established sexual relations with her
for 6 years on multiple occasions. There was no allegation in FIR that initially
when accused promised to marry complainant, it was done in bad faith or with
intention to deceive her. Held, allegations on face of FIR do not establish
commission of offence under section 375 of the IPC.
If woman gives her consent to sexual relationship on false promise to
marriage. Such consent is held to be based on "misconception of fact", and
amounts to absence of " Consent " under section 375 of the IPC.
In this judgement distinction between 'false promise ", and " breach of
promise ", is held.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 903; (2019) 9 SCC 608.
PRAMOD SURYABHAN PAWAR 🆚 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER.
(13) 482- In a complaint under section 498- A ,406 and 506 of IPC, against near
relatives of husband, who resided at different address than matrimonial home
of complainant. Proceedings against such accused quashed.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 636; (2019) 8 SCC 642.
SEENIVASAN 🆚 STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER.
(14) 482- Mere inability of accused to return loan amount cannot give rise to
prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention was shown
right at the beginning of transaction.
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 697; (2019) 9 SCC 148.
SATISHCHANDRA RATANLAL SHAH 🆚 STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER.
(15) 482- Allegation of House trespass and recovery of gun which was not used
by accused, but it's licence had not been renewed at the time of occurance but
got renewed later. Accused acquitted of the offence of house trespass

Held, at this distance of time allowing the prosecution to continue, only
in relation to FIR for illegal possession of gun, shall only be undue harassment
of the accused.
(2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 617 ; (2018) 14 SCC 499.
HARPREET SINGH 🆚 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.
(16) 482-Directions issued by the High Court that the erring officers/officials
named in the supplementary report shall be subject to disciplinary action.
Held, such orders are beyond the scope of the High Court in a petition
under Section 482 of the Code seeking quashing of the charge-sheet and are,
thus, quashed.
2019(4) PLJR 244 (SC)
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 🆚
AMAN MITTAL & ANOTHER
Points which arises during course of criminal proceedings

(1 ) Release of victim minor girls in cases of kidnapping:-
When girl is not an accused (in kidnapping case lodged by her parents )
nor was kidnapped, she was not required to be sent to Remand Home when
her mother-in-law made request for her released in her favour. Court below
ought to have declared the minor girl as major as per Supreme Court's
decision in Jaymala's case and should have passed order of release instead of
remanding to Remand Home . Girl directed to be produced in Court for being
allowed to go to her place of choice .
2011 (3) PLJR 388 . (Patna HC).
RUKHASAR KHATOON VS. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Cr. W. J. C. No. - 996 of 2010.

(2) Injury report not required for the offence of section 323 of IPC:-
Corroborative medical evidence is not at all required for the attraction of the
offence under section 323 of IPC.
2006 (3) PLJR 253. ( Patna HC)
OF BIHAR.
Criminal Appeal Nos. - 460,560 of 2000 (DB)
(3) Related or interested witnesses:-
Evidence of related or interest interested witness cannot be discarded
merely because they are related or interested in the parties on either side.
Where presence of such witness is natural at the time of occurrence and is
found in the light of surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case to
be true , it can provide a good and sound basis for conviction of the accused .
Where it is found that there is enemity and witnesses are near relatives too, the
Court has a duty to scrutinize their evidence with great care, caution and
circumspection and be very careful too in weighing such evidence.
When there evidence is consistent on all material points with respect
to the PO, use of weapon in the occurrence, time of occurrence and manner of
occurrence and is corroborated from the medical evidence and objective finding
of the investigating officer, minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in their
evidence can well be ignored.
2006 (3) PLJR 253. ( Patna HC)
OF BIHAR.
Criminal Appeal Nos. - 460,560 of 2000 (DB)
(4) Test Identification Parade:-
Identification of accused for first time in Court is permissible in law.
But said principal has to be applied in the facts and circumstances of each case.
2015 CRI. L. J. 2944 (SC).
RANJEET KUMAR RAM @ RANJIT KUMAR DAS VS. STATE OF BIHAR. WITH
PANDIT @ SANJAY MAHTO ETC. VS. STATE OF BIHAR. AND CHINTOO SINGH VS.
STATE OF BIHAR.

Criminal appeal no. - 1831 of 2011 with 1820-21 & 1817 of 2013.
(5) suspicion:-
Suspicion however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof and
cannot be made basis for the conviction.
2015 CRI. L. J. 2944 (SC).
RANJEET KUMAR RAM @ RANJIT KUMAR DAS VS. STATE OF BIHAR. WITH
PANDIT @ SANJAY MAHTO ETC. VS. STATE OF BIHAR. AND CHINTOO SINGH VS.
STATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal appeal no. - 1831 of 2011 with 1820-21 & 1817 of 2013.
(6) Inconsistency between evidence of doctor and eyewitness:-
Inconsistency between evidence of doctor and eye witness on point as
to how injury was caused . Evidence of doctor cannot override unimpeachable
testimony of eyewitnesses.
AIR 1997 SC 364.
DARSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA.
(7 ) Doctor's opinion about weapon:-
Doctor opinion about weapon though theoretical, cannot be totally
wiped out . Conviction of accused based on evidence of injured and
eyewitnesses , is held to be proper.
2005 CRI. L. J. 2602 (SC)
ANWARUL HAQ VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
(8) Three eyewitnesses were examined, who were injured also merely because
two injured witnesses were not examined, would not lead to an inference that
prosecution was not correct.
2003 CRI. L. J. 1282 (SC)

(9) Denial by seizure list witness:-
Recovery witness related to accused. The denial by such witness of having
signed recovery memo and asserting that their signature were taken on blank
paper, which was then used in preparing recovery memo. But no presentation
made by them to authorities concerned, about police obtaining their signature
on blank papers. And not disputing veracity of their signature on recovery
memos. Held, recovery not vitiated.
(2012) 1 SCC (CRI) 73 ; (2011) 10 SCC 675.
GAJRAJ VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
(10) The differences between hanging and strangulation have been highlighted
by Modi on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 25th Edition as follows:-
Hanging :-
1.Most Suicidal.
2.Face :- Usual pale and petechiae rare.
3.Saliva :- Dribbling out of mouth down on the chin and chest.
4.Neck :- Stressed and elongated in fresh bodies.
5. External signs of asphyxia usually not well marked.
6. Ligature mark :- Oblique, non-continuous placed high up in the neck
between the chin and the larynx, the base of the groove or furrow being hard,
yellow and parchment- like.
7. Abrasions and ecchymoses round about the adges of the ligature mark, rare.
8. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark - white, hard and glistening.
9. Injury to the muscles of neck :- Rare.
10. Carotid arteries , internal coats ruptured in.
11. Fracture of the larynx and trachea :- Very rare and may be found that too
in judicial hanging.
12. Fracture :- dislocation of the cervical vertebrae :- common in judicial
hanging.

13. Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the
body :- usually not present.
14. No evidence of sexual assault.
15. Emphysematous bullae on surface of the lungs :- not present.
Strangulation : -
1.Mostly homicidal.
2. Face :- Congested livid and marked with petechiae.
3. Saliva :– No such dribbling.
4. Neck :- Not so.
5. External signs of asphyxia, very well marked (minimal if death due to
vasovagal and carotid sinus effect) .
6. Ligature mark :- Horizontal or transverse continuous, round the neck, low
down in the neck below the thyroid, the base of the groove or furrow being soft
and reddish.
7. Abrasions and ecchymoses round about the edges of the ligature mark,
common.
8. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark :- Ecchymoses.
9. Injury to the muscles of the neck :- common.
10. Carotid arteries, internal coats ordinary ruptured.
11. Fracture of the larynx, trachea and hyoidd bone.
12. Fracture :- dislocation of the cervical vertebrae :- Rare.
13. Scratches, abrasions fingernail marks and bruises on the face, neck and
other parts of the body :- Usually present .
14. No evidence of sexual assault.
15. Emphysematous bullae on the surface of the lungs :- May be present.
Definitions:-
Strangulation is defined as the compression of the neck by a force other than
hanging. Weight of the body has nothing to do with the strangulation.

Ligature strangulation is a violent form of death, which results from
constricting the neck by means of a literature or by any other means without
suspending the body.
When construction is produced by the pressure of the fingers and Palm upon
the throat, it is called as throttling. When strangulation is brought about by
compressing the throat with a foot, knee, band of elbow, or some other solid
substance, it is known as mugging (strangle hold) .
(2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 101 ; (2019) 10 SCC 778
JAVED ABDUL RAJJAQ SHAIKH 🆚 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
Arms act
(1 ) position of double barrel gun without licence type of set gun was such that
it could be fired by first feeling it with gunpowder no test firing to find out
whether it was in working condition necessary no evidence of an expert are
necessary to show that it was in working condition evidence of police officer
trained to handle such type of weapon would be sufficient condition cannot be
essay for want of expert evidence.
1999 CRI. L. J. 453 (SC)
JARNAIL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB.
(2) used found in possession of Pistol loaded with cartridges evidence of police
officers that it was in working condition Police officers not cross examine on
question of working condition of piston held in view of fact and that pistol was
loaded and police officers were competent enough to state about working
order of Pistol accused could be convicted even in absence of examination by
expert.
1999 CRI. L. J. 452. (SC)
HARNEK SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB.
Criminal appeal no. -796 of 1998. (SC)

By Narendra Kumar Roy
Prosecution Officer
Bihar
Hello
,

Ready Reference On CR.P.C by - Narendra KR - Roy .

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ready Reference On CR.P.C by - Narendra KR - Roy .

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ready Reference On CR.P.C by - Narendra KR - Roy .

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

​Ready Reference on

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

Law College Notes & Stuffs

Exclusive group for Law Students

Join Us Here for More Materials

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

The code of criminal procedure ,1973

2.The code of criminal procedure is an adjective or procedural law which

3.All criminal proceeding is guided by Criminal Procedure Code and it is

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

In the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

In above circumstances your honour would be graciously

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

4. Trial of offences under the Indian penal code and

2017 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 301 ( BOM.)

(3) 4-Trial commences on framing of charge. Not on taking of

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

​CHAPTER II Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

CONSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS AND

6. Classes of Criminal Courts. -

12. Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Chief

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

30. Sentence of imprisonment in default of fine .-

31. Sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

41 A. Notice of appearance before police officer. -

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

50. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and

53. Examination of accused by medical practitioner at the

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

53.A. Examination of person accused of rape by medical

74. Warrant directed to police officer. -

82. Proclamation for person absconding. -

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

83. Attachment of property of person absconding. -

Processes to compel the production of things

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

91. Summons to produce document or other thing. -

97. Search for persons wrongfully confined. -

100. Person in charge of a closed place to allow search. -

102.Power of police officer to seize certain property. -

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is

Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

Ready Reference on

CHAPTER II Find More at https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

Followed- AIR 1979 S. C 1791. 193-Making over of cases to