sentencing accused to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment is

Cr.P.C. SOLVED PROBLEMS valid.

Conclusion: Per Cr.P.C Section 28(3), In this case, an

assistant sessions judge sentences an accused to 7 years
TOPIC: POWERS OF COURT rigorous imprisonment, this is valid.

PROBLEM NO. 1 TOPIC: JURISDICTION & ARREST OF PERSONS

PROBLEM NO. 1
An assistant sessions judge sentences an accused to
7 years rigorous imprisonment. Whether judge has The police officer investigating an offence pursues
power to impose such sentence? Decide. an offender whom he can arrest without warrant.
The offender escapes from the circle of the police
ANSWER: officer pushing him. The police officer consequently
Applicable Cr.P.C. Section 28(3)
arrests offender outside his circle. Is it legal?
28. Sentences which High Courts and Sessions Judges ANSWER:
may pass. Applicable Section 48

(3) An Assistant Sessions Judge may pass any sentence 48: Pursuit of offenders into other jurisdictions.
authorised by law except a sentence of death or of
imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term A police officer may, for the purpose of arresting without
exceeding ten years. warrant any person whom he is authorised to arrest,
pursue such person into any place in India.
Assistant Sessions Judge has power any sentence except a
sentence of death or of imprisonment for life or of According to Cr.P.C. Section 48, Police officer not at liberty
imprisonment for a term exceeding ten years. So, the Assistant to go outside India and to arrest there an offender without
Sessions Judge has powers to pass sentence till ten years. In warrant. But such a pursuit within the territory of India is
the present case, the action of Assistant Session Judge in permissible. Thus, where after committing an offence at one
place, the accused flew to another place which is outside the

1
jurisdiction of a police officer who is investigating a case, the ANSWER:
Police officer can go outside the limits of his jurisdiction in Applicable Section 42
pursuit of the accused and effect an arrest.
42. Arrest on refusal to give name and residence.
In the case of Manbondh vs The State AIR 1953, the High (1) When any person who, in the presence of a police officer,
Court observed that Section 48 authorizes a Police officer to has committed or has been accused of committing a
pursue the offender to any place in India for the purposes of non-cognizable offence refuse, on demand of such
effecting his arrest and police regulations also directs that officer, to give his name and residence or gives a name
police officer shall follow the pursuit beyond the boundary of or residence which such officer has reason to believe to
his circle for this purpose. In the circumstances stated above, be false, he may be arrested by such officer in order that
the High Court held that the arrest of this accused is legal. his name or residence may be ascertained.
And even if there be any illegality in his arrest, the trial is not
vitiated on that account. (2) When the true name and residence of such person have
been ascertained, he shall be released on his executing
Conclusion: Per Cr.P.C Section 58, the arrest of a person by a bond, with or without sureties, to appear before a
the Police officer investigating an offence in pursuit of an Magistrate if so required:
offender is legal even though it is made outside his Provided that, if such person is not resident in India, the
jurisdiction. A police officer may, for the purpose of arresting bond shall be secured by a surety or sureties resident in
without warrant any person whom he is authorised to arrest, India.
pursue such person into any place in India
(3) Should the true name and residence of such person not
PROBLEM NO. 2 be ascertained within twenty-four hours from the time
of arrest or should he fail to execute the bond, or, if so
A film actor committed a non-cognizable offence in required, to furnish sufficient sureties, he shall
the presence of a police officer. The police officer forthwith be forwarded to the nearest Magistrate having
asked the actor to give his true name and address jurisdiction.
of residence, the actor refused to give his true name
Under sub-section (1), when a person has committed a non-
and address of residence. Can police officer arrest
cognizable offence in the presence of Police Officer, the person
the actor? shall be arrested, if such person:

2
 a) refuses to give his name or residence or ANSWER:
b) gives name and residence which police officer believes Applicable Section 57 and Article 22(2)
to be false
57. Person arrested not to be detained more than
twenty-four hours.—No police officer shall detain in
Under sub-section (2), such person shall be released on
custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer
executing a bond with or without securities after his name and
period than under all the circumstances of the case is
address have been ascertained. If such person is not a resident
reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a
of India, the bond must be secured by a surety who is an
special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed
Indian Citizen.
twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the
journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court.
Under sub-section (3), the person should be produced before
Magistrate, in case where:
Under Cr.P.C Section 57, a police officer who arrests a person
a) the name and address could not be ascertained, within 24
without a warrant shall not detain him in his custody for more
hours from the time of his arrest or
than 24 hours without the special permission of a magistrate
b) if he fails to execute a bond or, if so required to furnish
under section 167 of the CrPC. This special permission
sufficient securities,
referred to in Section 57 is known as remand. It can also be
known as pre-trial detention.
Conclusion: Per Cr.P.C Section 42, a film actor who has
committed a non-cognizable offence in the presence of a
Article 22(2) in The Constitution of India 1949
police officer can be arrested if the actor refuses to give his
(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody
true name and address of residence.
shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a
period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the
PROBLEM NO. 3 time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to
the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be
‘A’ an accused is produced before the Magistrate
detained in custody beyond the said period without the
after the expiry of 24 hours of his arrest. He seeks authority of a magistrate.
his release on the ground that production of him
before the Magistrate after 24 hours of his arrest Further Article 22(2) of the constitution of India provides that
rendered the custody illegal. Decide. any person arrested and detained in custody must be

3
produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of his TOPIC: WARRANT
arrest and no person can be detained beyond the period of 24
hours without the authority of the magistrate. PROBLEM NO. 1

In the case of Mohd. Suleman v King Emperor, it was held A Magistrate issues a warrant of arrest for
that the right to be brought before a magistrate within a period production of a person before a particular police
of 24 hours of arrest has been created with a view- officer. Is it valid?
1. To prevent arrest and detention for the purpose of
extracting confessions or as a means of compelling ANSWER:
people to give information. Applicable Section 44, 73(1) and 204. Magistrate does not
2. To prevent police stations being used as though they have unfettered right to issue warrant.
were prisons
3. To afford an early recourse to a judicial officer Section 44 deals with Arrest by Magistrate.
independent of the police on all questions of bail or
discharge. 44. Arrest by Magistrate.

In the case of Sharif Bai v Abdul Razak AIR 1961 Bombay (1) When any offence is committed in the presence of a
42, the High Court held that where a police officer fails to Magistrate, whether Executive or Judicial, within his
produce an arrested person before a Magistrate within 24 local jurisdiction, he may himself arrest or order any
hours of the arrest, he shall be held guilty of offence of person to arrest the offender, and may thereupon,
wrongful detention. subject to the provisions herein contained as to bail,
commit the offender to custody.
Conclusion: In view of the fact, A’s demand is completely valid
and legal since he has been detained for more than 24 hours (2) Any Magistrate, whether Executive or Judicial, may at
in police custody and this is a violation of his Fundamental any time arrest or direct the arrest, in his presence,
Rights per Article 22(2) of COI. Thus, A’s detention is illegal within his local jurisdiction, of any person for whose
per Cr.P.C. Section 57 and A’s demand to release him is arrest he is competent at the time and in the
completely valid. circumstances to issue a warrant.

4
Under Section 44 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 73(1) deals with the issue of warrant of arrest by
the offence is committed before the magistrate himself. He is Court.
sure about the guilt of the person committing the offence and,
therefore, he has been given the power to commit him to 73. Warrant may be directed to any person.
custody.
(1) The Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first
Under Section 44 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 class may direct a warrant to any person within his local
the position is different; the offence has not been committed jurisdiction for the arrest of any escaped convict,
in his presence and he is not sure whether the person brought proclaimed offender or of any person who is accused of a
before him under arrest has really committed offence or not. non-bailable offence and is evading arrest.
Also, under this sub-section the legislature has deliberately
given the power to the Magistrate to commit the offender to Section 204 empowers the magistrate to issue summons or
custody. warrant (as the case appears) for the attendance of the
accused after the witnesses of the prosecution have been filed.
In the case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs Deepak
Mahajan 1994, the court held that in sub-section (1) of 204. Issue of process.
Section 44 Cr. P. C, the offence for which the arrest is to be
made, must have been committed in presence of the (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an
Magistrate, who intends to arrest such person, however, offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the
under sub-section (2), the Magistrate is empowered to arrest case appears to be—
or to direct, arrest any person at any time, present at the time (b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he
of such arrest or direction to arrest. thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be
brought or to appear at a certain time before such
In other words, for applicability of sub-section (2) of Section Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some
44 Cr. P. C the person to be arrested should be physically other Magistrate having jurisdiction.
present before the Magistrate and such Magistrate must be
competent at the time and in the circumstances to issue The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently made it
warrant of arrest. clear that a magistrate cannot in a routine manner invoke
power to issue warrants of arrest of an accused on an

5
application moved by a police officer. The magistrate has to
exercise his discretion in a judicial manner. FORM No. 2
WARRRANT OF ARREST
Conclusion: A magistrate has power to issue warrant of arrest (See section 70)
per Section 44, 73(1) and 204 where an offence is committed
in front of him or based on a police report or based on a To (name and designation of the person or persons who
complaint received. But this power is not exclusive and is or are to execute the warrant). WHEREAS (name of
subjected to revisions. From the above discussions, it is clear accused) of (address) stands charged with the offence
that Magistrate does not have unfettered right to issue of (state the offence), you are hereby directed to arrest
the said , and to produce him before me.
warrant of arrest. Thus, the warrant of arrest issued by
Herein fail not.
magistrate is legal based on the validity of the case registered
and complaints received.
Dated, this day of ,20 .

PROBLEM NO. 2 (Seal of the Court) (Signature)

A court of Judicial Magistrate of First-class issues a
warrant of arrest directing the police to arrest the Per Section 70, and Form No II of Second Schedule, the
proprietor of a firm without mentioning the name or requirements for a warrant of arrest are:
description of the proprietor. Is the warrant of
arrest valid? • It should be in writing.
• It must bear the name and address of the person who
ANSWER: is to execute it.
Applicable Section 70 and Form No II of Second Schedule. • It must give full name and description of the person to
be arrested.
70. Form of warrant of arrest and duration.
• It must clearly specify the offence committed by the
person.
(1) Every warrant of arrest issued by a Court under this
• It must contain the date on which it is being issued.
Code shall be in writing, signed by the presiding officer of
• It must be signed by Presiding officer of the court.
such Court and shall bear the seal of the Court.
• It must bear the seal of the Court.

6
Conclusion:
In the present case, the warrant of arrest says that proprietor Section 77 says that warrant of arrest may be executed at any
of a firm should be arrested. However, it does not contain place in India. It is clear from this section that the warrant of
name or description of Proprietor. Hence it is not a valid arrest can be executed only within India.
warrant.
77. Where warrant may be executed.—A warrant of arrest
PROBLEM NO. 3 may be executed at any place in India.

‘A’ misappropriates the money from a company in Per Section 78, if a warrant is to be issued outside local limits,
Bangalore and runs away. The police gets the the Court may forward a warrant, which is to be executed
information that he is in Sri Lanka. The Executive outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, by post or otherwise
Magistrate issues warrant to arrest him under Sec. to any executive Magistrate or District SP or the commissioner
72 (1) of Cr.P.C. Whether this warrant can be of Police within whose jurisdiction it is to be executed.
executed? Give reasons.
78. Warrant forwarded for execution outside
ANSWER: jurisdiction.—(1) When a warrant is to be executed outside
Applicable Section 72(1), 77 and 78. the local jurisdiction of the Court issuing it, such Court
may, instead of directing the warrant to a police officer
72. Warrants to whom directed. within its jurisdiction, forward it by post or otherwise to any
Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or
(1) A warrant of arrest shall ordinarily be directed to one or Commissioner of Police within the local limits of whose
more police officers; but the Court issuing such a warrant jurisdiction it is to be executed; and the Executive
may, if its immediate execution is necessary and no police Magistrate or District Superintendent or Commissioner
officer is immediately available, direct it to any other person shall endorse his name thereon, and if practicable, cause it
or persons, and such person or persons shall execute the to be executed in the manner hereinbefore provided.
same.
In the present case, the criminal has fled to Sri Lanka, so the
Per Cr.P.C. Section 72 Magistrate can issue warrant who fails provisions of Section 77 and 78 are not applicable and the
to appear before a court on summons. However, section 77 warrant of arrest can’t be executed directly.
and 78 overrides the Provisions of Section 72.

7
Extradition is the system by which a fugitive can be made to warrant or endorsement or authentication of the
surrender by one nation to another, for trial and punishment, warrant of the court which issued it. By such
of a person accused or convicted of an offence within the endorsement or authentication, the State expresses its
jurisdiction of the latter. A request for extradition is generally willingness to lend its assistance in implementation of
initiated against a fugitive criminal, who is formally accused treaties or international commitments to secure the
of, or is charged with, or is convicted of an extradition arrest of the offender. The offender arrested pursuant
sentence. In India, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), is to the warrant or endorsement is brought before the
the Central Authority in Extradition matters, including Court of the country to which requisition is made and
processing of extradition requests. The Court may also, in that court holds enquiry to determine whether the,
appropriate complaint cases, send an extradition request offender may be extradited. Courts in India have no
along with authenticated copy of a warrant of arrest or a authority to sit in judgment over the order passed by
finding of guilt or judgment of conviction against the person the Hong Kong Magistrate.
sought.
• In the present case, the Chief Presidency Magistrate,
In the case of State Of West Bengal vs Jugal Kishore More Calcutta, had power to issue the warrant for the arrest
1969 SC, the court held that of the respondent because there was prima facie
evidence against him. If the warrant was to be
• the Courts of the country which make a requisition for successfully executed a against the. Respondent,
surrender proceed upon prima facie proof of the offence who was not in India, the assistance of the executive
and leave it to the State to make a requisition upon the government had to be obtained. Therefore, the issue of
other State, in which the offender has taken refuge. the warrant and the procedure followed in transmitting
Under s. 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when a it were not illegal and not even irregular.
warrant is issued by a Magistrate in India, it can be
executed anywhere in India and has no extra-territorial • While the law relating to extradition between
operation. By making a requisition to another State, in
independent States is based on treaties, whether an
pursuance of such a warrant, for assistance in securing offender should be handed over pursuant to a
the presence of the offender, the warrant is not invested
requisition is determined by the domestic law of the
with extraterritorial operation. If the other State State on which the requisition is made. Therefore, the
requested agrees to lend its aid to arrest the fugitive, fact that the Extradition Act, 1962, could not be availed
the arrest is made by the issue of an independent of for securing the presence of the respondent for trial

8
 in India, did not operate as a bar to the requisition TOPIC: POLICE AND THEIR POWERS
made by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government
of India, if they were able to persuade the Colonial PROBLEM NO. 1
Secretary, Hong Kong, to deliver the respondent for trial
in this country. If the Colonial Secretary was willing to A police officer has recorded information regarding
do so, it cannot be said that the warrant issued by the a cognizable offence in his police station diary on
Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, for the arrest of the basis of a phone call. Can it be regarded as FIR?
the respondent with the aid of the requisition for
securing his presence from Hong Kong in India, was ANSWER:
illegal. Applicable Section 154. Yes, a telephonic conversation is FIR
if it is not cryptic.
Based on the above case, a warrant of arrest issued by a
magistrate on a fugitive residing in another country is not 154. Information in cognizable cases.
illegal. The warrant of arrest shall be sent to Ministry of
External Affairs (MEA) which shall issue an extradition 1) Every information relating to the commission of a
request to the contracting state. Then it’s upon the contracting cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a
state which shall lend help to arrest the individual and police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under
extradite back to the requesting state. his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every
such information, whether given in writing or reduced to
Conclusion: Therefore, the warrant issued by executive
writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it,
magistrate under Sec 72(1) cannot be executed by police
and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be
officers on a fugitive fled to Sri Lanka. It shall only be
kept by such officer in such form as the State Government
forwarded to Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) which shall
may prescribe in this behalf.
make an extradition request to Sri Lanka based on the
extradition treaties signed between the two states.
In a telephonic message to Police, the person conveying the
information did not disclose his identity, nor did he give any
other particulars, such message is extremely cryptic and it
shall not be regarded as FIR. But this shall be recorded in the
General diary. So, if telephone message was cryptic, then it
cannot be FIR. If it is detailed one with informant information

9
and the complaint can be reduced to writing, then the information or containing part-information about the
telephonic message can be treated as FIR. commission of a cognizable offence cannot always be treated
as an FIR. This proposition has been accepted by this Court
In Tapinder Singh V State of Punjab SC, observed that a in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Damodar v. State of
cryptic and anonymous oral telephonic message which does Rajasthan. A mere message or a telephonic message which
not specify the committing of a cognisable offence cannot be does not clearly specify the offence, cannot be treated as an
treated as FIR merely because Suh information was first in FIR.”
point of time.
Conclusion: From the above, it can be said that although
In Surjit Sarkar vs State of West Bengal 2012 SC, observed Section 154 requires that FIR should be signed by the
as under: informant, but a telephonic report is also admissible as FIR
and constitutes a sufficient ground to initiate investigation.
37. A bare reading of this section makes it clear that However, whether a telephonic message regarding an offence
even though oral information given by an officer in having been committed which is received at the Police Station
charge of a police station can be treated as an FIR, yet can constitute FIR or not has to be decided with reference to
some procedural formalities are required to be facts of each case.
completed. They include reducing the information in
writing and reading it over to the informant and PROBLEM NO. 2
obtaining his or her signature on the transcribed
information. A Telephonic message was received by an officer-in-
charge of a police station reporting the commission
38. In the case of a telephonic conversation received of dacoity and requesting for help. The police officer
from an unknown person, the question of reading over immediately left the police station and rushed to the
that information to the anonymous informant does not spot where he recorded detailed statement of the
arise nor does the appending of a signature to the
complainant about the occurrence. Will the
information, as recorded, arise.
statement be treated as first information report?
In a very recent case of Netaji Achyut Shinde (Patil) Vs.
ANSWER:
State of Maharashtra LL 2021 SC 176, SC re-iterated this
Applicable Section 154.
proposition: “A cryptic phone call without complete

10
 be a statement made by a person to the police officer "in the
154. Information in cognizable cases. course of investigation", covered by Section 162 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. That statement cannot be treated as
1) Every information relating to the commission of a First Information Report.
cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a
police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under In the case of Ramsin Bavaji Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat
his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every [reported in MANU/SC/0670/1994], the Supreme Court laid
such information, whether given in writing or reduced to down following proposition:
writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it,
and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be “If the telephonic message is cryptic in nature and the officer-
kept by such officer in such form as the State Government in-charge, proceeds to the place of occurrence on the basis of
may prescribe in this behalf. that information to find out the details of the nature of the
offence itself, then it cannot be said that the information,
In a telephonic message to Police, the person conveying the which had been received by him on telephone, shall be deemed
information did not disclose his identity, nor did he give any to be First Information Report. The object and purpose of
other particulars, such message is extremely cryptic and it giving such telephonic message is not to lodge the First
shall not be regarded as FIR. But this shall be recorded in the Information Report, but to request the officer-in-charge of the
General diary. police station to reach the place of occurrence.

In the present case Police Officer had received cryptic report On the other hand, if the information given on telephone is not
and only for the purpose of visiting the scene of occurrence cryptic and on the basis of that information, the officer- in-
then Telephonic message cannot be treated as FIR. In such a charge is prime facie satisfied about the commission of a
case detailed statement recorded subsequently from the cognizable offence and he proceeds from the police station
complainant can be treated as FIR. In other words, detailed after recording such information, to investigate such offence,
statement can be considered as FIR, if the same is recorded then any statement made by any person in respect of the said
before the commencement of investigation, but not otherwise. offence including about the participants, shall be deemed to
Once a police officer proceeds from the police station after be a statement made by a person to the police officer "in the
recording such information, to investigate such offence, then course of investigation", covered by Section 162 of the Code of
any statement made by any person in respect of the said Criminal Procedure. That statement cannot be treated as First
offence including about the participants, shall be deemed to Information Report. But any telephonic information about

11
commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the nature officer refuses to register first information report.
and details of such information cannot be treated as First What is the next course of action available to Raju?
Information Report.
ANSWER:
This can be illustrated. In a busy market place, a murder is Applicable Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200. Other
committed. Any person in the market, including one of the options are also available like Right to Information Act (RTI),
shop-owners, telephones to the nearest police station, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and filing of Writ
informing the officer in charge, about the murder, without petitions. If a person discovers that no action has been taken
knowing the details of the murder, the accused or the victim. by the police on the complaint, the person can follow any of
On basis of that information, the officer in charge, reaches the the following procedures:
place where the offence is alleged to have been committed. Can
it be said that before leaving the police station, he has recorded 1. Superintendent of Police or senior officer
the first information report? In some cases, the information Section 154(3) deals with this situation.
given may be that a person has been shot at or stabbed. It
cannot be said that in such a situation, the moment the officer 154. Information in cognizable cases.
in charge leaves the police station, the investigation has (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an
commenced. In normal course, he has first to find out the officer in charge of a police station to record the information
person who can give the details of the offence, before such referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of
officer is expected to collect the evidence in respect of the said such information, in writing and by post, to the
offence.” Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that
such information discloses the commission of a cognizable
Conclusion: In this present case, the police rushed to spot offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an
and recorded a detailed statement of the complainant about investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate
the occurrence. So, per Cr.P.C. Section 154, the detailed to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such
statement alone can be treated as FIR but not the cryptic officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the
telephonic message. police station in relation to that offence

PROBLEM NO. 3 Write an application to the Superintendent of Police

Raju goes to city police station of Shimoga to give concerned, by post under clause 3, Section 154 and Section
information about a cognizable offence. The police 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code who in case of a cognizable

12
offence, can either investigate the case himself or direct any
police officer subordinate to him to investigate the case. The 190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.
said officer herein will have the same powers as an officer in
charge of the police station in relation to that case. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any
Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the
So, Raju can send a letter by post to concerned SP, giving second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-
substance of information. It may also be noted that the Police section (2), may take cognizance of any offence—
officer has held to be duty bound to register the Case on (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute
receiving information of a Cognizable offence Section 166A such offence;
clearly makes it mandatory for the Police Officer to record FIR. (b) upon a police report of such facts;
The police officer is liable for prosecution and punishment if (c) upon information received from any person other
he fails to comply with provisions of Section 166A(3) of IPC. than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that
such offence has been committed.
2. Magistrate
Section 154 (3) deals with this situation. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any
Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under
156. Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his
case. competence to inquire into or try.
3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order
such an investigation as above-mentioned. In case the Magistrate finds that the police have not performed
its duty at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue
Approach the corresponding magistrate, who under the an order / direction under Section 154(3) to the police to take
provision of clause 3, Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure necessary action and can monitor the same. After the
Code, 1973 or any second-class magistrate empowered by the completion of the investigation, the police officer has to submit
chief judicial magistrate under clause 2, Section 190 of the the charge sheet without an unnecessary delay. No action or
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 can check on the duties and investigation by such police officer can be questioned on the
actions performed by the police. The magistrate can take ground that he was not empowered to do so in this regard.
cognizance of an offense as are within his competence to A magistrate can even ask to re-open the case after the
inquire into or try as per Section 190 Cr.P.C. submission of the final report by the police.

13
3. Criminal complaint 4. Right to Information (RTI)
Section 200 deals with this situation.
If the complainant is not able to access the progress of his
200. Examination of complainant.—A Magistrate taking complaint in police stations, he can contact the senior official
cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon of the police station or file a Right to Information applies to
oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, the Station House Officer (SHO) of the police station to seek
and the substance of such examination shall be reduced knowledge about the progress of his/her complaint.
to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the
witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: 5. Human Rights Commission

Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the A complaint can be filed with the State Human Rights
Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the Commission or the National Human Rights Commission
witnesses— (NHRC) about the inaction of the police for the complaint filed.
The National Human Rights Commission provides a facility to
(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the register and monitor the progress of the complaint online to
discharge of his official duties or a Court the injured.
has made the complaint; or
(b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial 6. WRIT Petition
to another Magistrate under section 192: If none of this is of help, a person can file a writ petition in
high court under the provision of Section 482 of the Criminal
Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case Procedure Code, 1973.
to another Magistrate under section 192 after examining
482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.
the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate
need not re-examine them. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the
A criminal complaint can also be filed under Section 200 of inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as
the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 which provides for an may be necessary to give effect to any order under this
examination of the complainant and the witness upon oath. It Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
is written and is signed by the complainant, witnesses, and by otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
the Magistrate.

14
Conclusion
160. Police officer’s power to require attendance of
Though the above-mentioned remedies are available to a witnesses.
person at all times if he discovers that no satisfactory action (1) Any police officer making an investigation under this
has been taken by the police in relation to his complaint, it Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance
was observed by the honourable Supreme Court of India in before himself of any person being within the limits of his
case of Sakiri Vasu vs State of U.P. And Others, 2007 that own or any adjoining station who, from the information
the complainant should seek and exhaust the provisions for given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts
seeking remedy under Section 36 and Clause 3 of Section 154 and circumstances of the case; and such person shall
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the concerned attend as so required:
police officers, and if that is of no avail, under clause 3 of Provided that no male person [under the age of fifteen years
Section 156 of the code before the magistrate or by filing a or above the age of sixty-five years or a woman or
criminal complaint under Section 200 Criminal Procedure a mentally or physically disabled person] shall be required
Code,1973 before filing a petition in the respective high court. to attend at any place other than the place in which such
The Supreme Court discouraged the practice of filing a writ male person or woman resides.
petition or a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 directly in the high court for a Section 160 Cr.P.C empowers a police officer doing
complaint of failure to register an FIR or proper investigation investigation under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C to require
of the case by the police. attendance before him of any person within the limits of his
own police station or adjoining police station, who in his
PROBLEM NO. 4 opinion appears to be acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case. Thus, Section 160 Cr.P.C enables
‘X’ a police officer who is making investigation of a a police official to investigate the crime by calling such persons
case has come to know that a woman residing who have some kind of knowledge about the crime. However,
within limits of his police station is acquainted with Provision to Section clearly states that a male under the age
facts of the case. Can he require her to appear in the of 15 or above 65, woman or mentally or physically disabled
police station to give information? person cannot be required to attend at any place other than
the place where he or she resides. So, Women, children and
ANSWER: physically handicapped persons, who are witness cannot be
Applicable Section 160. summoned to Police Station.

15
Conclusion: Thus, the Police officer, per Cr.P.C. Section 160, Per sub-section (1) of Section 164 Cr.P.C, a Judicial
cannot summon woman who is acquainted with the facts of Magistrate may record a confession only if the offense has
the case to appear in the police station to give information. been committed within his jurisdiction, or if the person
Where the Statement of a woman is required for investigation, making the confession is forwarded to him by a Magistrate
the Police officer will have to go to her residence and record having jurisdiction. In this case, since the offense was
the Statement. committed in Agra, the Judicial Magistrate at Lucknow would
have no jurisdiction to record the confession. Such confession
PROBLEM NO. 5 recorded by a magistrate with no jurisdiction may vitiate
irregular proceeding under Section 463. Per sub-section (4) of
'A' commits an offence in 'Agra' but makes a Section 164 Cr.P.C, any confession made in the manner
confession before the Judicial Magistrate at provided by section 281, shall be signed by the person making
'Lucknow', who has no power to try the case, but he the confession. Since it is not signed by the accused, it can be
did not sign the confessional statement recorded by held invalid.
the magistrate. Is confession valid? Decide.
463. Non-compliance with provisions of section 164 or
ANSWER: section 281.—(1) If any Court before which a confession or
Applicable Section 164, 281 and 463. other statement of an accused person recorded, or
purporting to be recorded under section 164 or section 281,
164. Recording of confessions and statements.—(1) Any is tendered, or has been received, in evidence finds that any
Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, of the provisions of either of such sections have not been
whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any complied with by the Magistrate recording the statement,
confession or statement made to him in the course of an it may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 91 of
investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), take evidence
the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the in regard to such non-compliance, and may, if satisfied that
commencement of the inquiry or trial such non-compliance has not injured the accused in his
(4) Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner defence on the merits and that he duly made the statement
provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an recorded, admit such statement.
accused person and shall be signed by the person making
the confession Furthermore, as per Cr.P.C. Section 463, a court may take
into consideration, a confession, which is complied with by

16
Sections 164 or Section 28, even when it made before a TOPIC: BAIL
Magistrate of other jurisdiction, only in case the non-
compliance has not injured the accused in his defence on PROBLEM NO. 1
the merits.
Santosh and Suresh, accused in a non-bailable
In case Kartar Singh Vs state of Punjab, 1994 Crl.L.J. 3139 offence, are in judicial custody for more than 3
it was observed what section 164(2) of the code requires as months and the police have not filed charge sheet
amplified by rule 32 of Criminal Rules of Practice, is that as against them. Now they want to seek bail as of right.
soon as the accused intending to make confession is produced Will they succeed?
and before he is told he would be allowed time for reflection,
the magistrate should explain him that it is not intended to ANSWER:
make him an approver and that, he is not bound to make Applicable Section 167(2)(a)
confession and warn him that, if he does so, anything said by
him will be taken down and thereafter be used as evidence 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be
against him as evidence in relation to his complicity in the completed in twenty-four hours. —
offence at the trial, that is to follow. Compliance of sub- section
(2) being mandatory and imperative, its noncompliance (2)(a)…. No Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the
renders the confession inadmissible in evidence. Such accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total
defect cannot be cured under section 463 of the Cr.P.C. period exceeding—
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence
Conclusion: Based on the Cr.P.C Sections 164 and 463, the punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
confession made by 'A' before the Judicial Magistrate at imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;
Lucknow would not be considered valid since it is recorded by (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other
a magistrate having no jurisdiction and not signed by the offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days,
accused person as evidence in the trial of the offense or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall
committed in Agra. be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish
bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-
section shall be deemed to be so released under the
provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that
Chapter

17
Under Cr.P.C Section. 167(2)(a) maximum period may In the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs State Of
authorise detention of the accused person is 60 days or 90 Maharashtra 2001, the Supreme Cour held that it need not
days as the case may be. A plain reading of the provision of be repeated that the right accruing under proviso to Section
Section 167 would show that once the maximum period 167(2) of the Code on the expiry of the statutory period of sixty
provided for an investigation prescribed under the first proviso days cannot be said to have been availed of by mere making
(a) to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is over and no charge sheet is of an application for bail expressing therein willingness to
filed, the accused becomes entitled to be released on bail, more furnish bail, but on furnishing bail bond as required under
appropriately called the 'default bail' clause (a)(ii) of proviso read with Explanation I to Section
167(2) of the Code. If because of any bona fide view or
The SC has, in catena of cases held that the right to be procedure adopted by the court concerned some delay is
released on bail on the expiry of said 60/9 days is indefeasible caused and, in the meantime, challan is filed, the Court has
one. no power to direct release under proviso to Section 167(2) of
the Code. The bail appeal was dismissed.
In the matter of RAM NARAYAN SINGH VS STATE OF
DELHI, a judgement reported in AIR 1953 SC 277, the Conclusion: The only requirement for getting the default
Supreme Court has observed ‘detention of a person in custody bail/statutory bail under Cr.P.C. Section 167(2) is that the
after the expiry of remand order, without any fresh order of accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may
remand committing him to further custody while adjourning be, and within 60 or 90 days, the investigation is not
the case under SECTION 344, Code is illegal’. completed and no chargesheet is filed by Police officer till the
60th or 90th day. The non-filing of chargesheet within the
In the case of Prakash Rustam vs State Of M.P. 1995 (0) stipulated timeframe is the triggering point for the accused to
MPLJ 799, the High Court held that the accused has been be released in bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail
charged for committing two murders and the charge-sheet bond.
against him has been filed in the Court within the period of 90
days. Two co-accused have been released on bail by this High In the present case, Santosh and Suresh, accused in a non-
Court because charge-sheet against them was filed in the bailable offence, are in judicial custody for more than 3
Court beyond period of 90 days. Thus, this accused-applicant months and the police have not filed charge sheet against
was and is not coming under the purview of Section 167(2) of Suresh and Santosh in 90 days, hence they are eligible for
the Code. His case is also not on the same footing with the ‘default bail’ under Cr.P.C Section 167(2)(a).
case of other two co-accused who have been released on bail.

18
PROBLEM NO. 2 or is produced before the Court, the Court can refuse to
release him on bail and shall order the person to pay penalty
An accused is arrested in a bailable offence and he per Section 446.
is released on bail. During trial, he absconds and
non-bailable warrant is issued against him. The Conclusion: When an accused misuses his bail bond or has
police arrest him and produces him before the court. jumped bail, he shall forfeit his right to be released on bail
The defence counsel pleads for his release on bail when apprehended subsequently even in case of bailable
offence. The accused, who had jumped bail, cannot claim bail
under section 436(1), CrPC, which provides that a
again under Cr.P.C. Section 436(1), as a matter of right even
person accused of a bailable offence shall be
in a bailable case. Thus, the court shall deny the bail.
released on bail. Whether court can release him on
bail or not. Decide PROBLEM NO. 3
ANSWER: A makes an application for regular bail in the Court
Applicable Section 436(2)
of Session. The application is rejected. Now he wants
436. In what cases bail to be taken.— to make a fresh application for anticipatory bail
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the High Court. Advise
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), him.
where a person has failed to comply with the conditions of
the bail-bond as regards the time and place of attendance, ANSWER:
the Court may refuse to release him on bail, when on a Applicable Section 436(2)
subsequent occasion in the same case he appears before
the Court or is brought in custody and any such refusal 438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending
shall be without prejudice to the powers of the Court to call arrest.—(1) When any person has reason to believe
upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty that he may be arrested on an accusation of having
thereof under section 446. committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High
Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this
Per Cr.P.C. 436(2) of the Code shows that if a person had failed section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in
to comply with the conditions of the bail bond as regards the the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.
time and place of attendance, and subsequently, if he appears

19
Under Cr.P.C. Section 438, when a person has reason to TOPIC: PUBLIC NUISANCES
believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having
committed non bailable offence, he may apply for anticipatory PROBLEM NO. 1
bail. Hence one of the requirements of Section 438 is that "that
the petitioner should have reason to believe that he would be ‘A’ carried on the trade of auctioning vegetables in
arrested for having committed a non-bailable offence". The a private house. Those persons who brought
question of regular bail under Cr.P.C. Section 437 or 439 vegetables for sale kept their carts on the public
arises only after a person is arrested or already in detention. road in a manner causing obstruction to road
Once a person is already arrested or in detention, the question traffic. The noise caused by auctioning the vegetable
of the apprehension of arrest or reason to believe that he caused discomfort to the people living in the
would be arrested ceases to exist. In other words, once a
locality. The executive magistrate on receiving the
person is arrested, the question of apprehension that he may
information passes an order under Section 133 of
be arrested would not arise in the first place.
Cr.P.C. restraining ‘A’ from auctioning the
vegetables. ‘A’ challenge the order. Advice.
A similar issue was decided in Maya Rani Guin and Etc. vs
State of West Bengal on 30 July, 2002. In that case, accused
ANSWER:
got anticipatory bail. Later they surrendered to Court and
Applicable Section 133
applied for regular bail. The Court rejected regular Bail. Court
asked accused to approach higher court. However, accused Section 133 enumerates certain specific public nuisances and
were not arrested. The accused approached High Court for provides methods for removal thereof. It confers certain
anticipatory bail. The High Court rejected the anticipatory magistrates extra ordinary power to make conditional order
bail. Now the issue arose whether once again the accused can for removal of public nuisance, under six circumstances
seek anticipatory bail. The High Court held that once regular enumerated in clauses (a) to (f).
bail was rejected, the accused were not allowed to seek
anticipatory bail. Amongst others, following are treated as public nuisance:

Conclusion: A cannot make a fresh application for a) unlawful obstruction of any public way
anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the High Court b) Any trade injurious to public health or comfort
when regular bail is rejected, so the accused cannot apply for
anticipatory bail.

20
 the town where such trade is ordinarily carried on and the
133. Conditional order for removal of nuisance.—(1) slight discomfort that may be caused to some people passing
Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional by the road or living in the neighborhood. So, the court shall
Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially even set aside the Magistrate’s order to stop trade of vegetables
empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on which does not justify the purpose of Section. 133 of Cr.P.C.
receiving the report of a police officer or other information
and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, In the case of Ram Autar vs State of U. P 1959, the High
considers— Court dismissed the application for revision of an order
under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. In the appeal 1962, the Supreme
(a) that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should Court held that if a trade like auctioning which has to be
be removed from any public place or from any way, carried on as necessary for the well-being of the community,
river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the some amount of noise has to be borne in at least that part of
public; or the town where such trade is ordinarily carried on. The slight
discomfort that may be caused by carts to some people
(b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation, or the passing by the road or living in the neighbourhood cannot
keeping of any goods or merchandise, is injurious to ordinarily be considered to be such as to justify action
the health or physical comfort of the community, under Section. 133 Cr.P.C. We do not think that the orders
and that in consequence such trade or occupation are justified under s. 133. Accordingly, the Supreme Court
should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or allowed the appeal and set aside the order made by the
merchandise should be removed or the keeping thereof Magistrate.
regulated; or
Conclusion: ‘A’ has been carrying trade of auctioning of
The district sub divisional or executive Magistrates are vegetables for the well-being of the community. Per Supreme
empowered to make conditional order to remove such court’s verdict, some amounts of noise and discomforts are
nuisance only if conduct of trade or occupation is injurious to likely to cause by vegetable auctioning but that does not
public health or Physical health of the community warrant an action under Section. 133 Cr.P.C. So ‘A’ can
challenge the order and the court shall set aside the order
In this present case, a trade like auctioning of vegetables is made by the Magistrate.
carried on as necessary for the well-being of the community,
some amount of noise has to be borne in at least that part of

21
PROBLEM NO. 3

A’ is carrying on the licenced trade of selling liquor, 133. Conditional order for removal of nuisance.—(1)
adjacent to Hubballi Bus Stand. A’s servants openly Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional
soliciting public to consume liquor in a manner Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially
causing discomfort to the public. The noise caused empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on
receiving the report of a police officer or other information
by selling liquor caused discomfort to the people
and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit,
living in the locality and pedestrians. Executive
considers—
magistrate on receiving the information possess an
(a) that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should
order under S. 133 of Cr.P.C. restraining ‘A’ from be removed from any public place or from any way,
selling the liquor. A challenges the Order. Advice river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the
public; or
ANSWER: (b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation, or the
Applicable Section 133
keeping of any goods or merchandise, is injurious to
Section 133 confers powers to the magistrates to make the health or physical comfort of the community,
conditional order for removal of public nuisance, under sub- and that in consequence such trade or occupation
sections (a) and (b). Following are treated as public nuisance: should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or
merchandise should be removed or the keeping thereof
a) unlawful obstruction of any public way regulated; or
b) Any trade injurious to public health or comfort.

The district sub divisional or executive Magistrates are Conclusion: In this present case, a trade like selling of liquor
is very harmful and injurious to public health or comfort. So,
empowered to make conditional order to remove such
‘A’s servants making noise and soliciting public to consume
nuisance only if conduct of trade or occupation is injurious to
liquor is very dangerous to the society and it will set a bad
public health or Physical health of the community. Soliciting
precedent unstopped. So, the court shall not set aside the
drinking or selling of liquor is injurious to health and to society
Magistrate’s order under S. 133 of Cr.P.C. A’s challenge shall
in which such bad habits are being promoted openly to people
in public life. be dismissed and A’s servants shall be restrained from selling
liquor in public.

22
TOPIC : DISPUTES AS TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contains
provisions related to a breach of peace on account of a dispute
PROBLEM NO. 1 over land or water. If there is a dispute between two
parties/groups, the Executive Magistrate has the power to
‘Son’ dispossesses the ‘father’ from the ancestral take action in this regard.
house where both father and son are co-owners and
in respect of which partition is yet to take place. In Prakash Chand Sachdev v State 1993, an identical issue
Father lodges a complaint against his son. Whether was decided. Father was disposed of his ancestral house by
the magistrate has the jurisdiction to take the his son. Father moved the court u/s107 and 145 of Cr.P.C to
cognizance in the matter? Decide. get possession of the house. He also filed Civil suit for
injunction in a civil court. The Magistrate dropped the
proceedings under S.07 as there was obviously no
ANSWER:
Applicable Section 145. apprehension of breach of peace and subsequently
proceedings under S.145 were also dropped because of civil
145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water suit for injunction pending in Civil Court. In appeal, HC
is likely to cause breach of peace.— (1) Whenever an upheld the decision of the lower court. In the final appeal, the
Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police SC set aside the order passed by the High Court and the
officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to Magistrate dismissing the application filed under Section
cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or 145 CrPC and direct that the appellant shall be placed in
water or the boundaries thereof, within his local possession of the green portion forthwith, shown in the map
jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the filed by the appellant the correctness of which was not
grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties disputed even if third party interest had been created with the
concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or help of the police, if necessary.
by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in
written statements of their respective claims as respects the Conclusion: Father’s complaint has merits under Cr.P.C
fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. Section 145 and the magistrate shall take up the case and
(2) For the purposes of this section, the expression “land or pass orders to place the Father under possession of such
water” includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other ancestral property. When the dispute is not on the right to
produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such possession, but on the question of possession the Magistrate
property. has powers to take cognizance under Section 145 CrPC.

23
TOPIC: JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS committed and it can be tried by reason where the
IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS consequence has ensued. The defamatory article published
and circulated at different places including Hubli and Mysore.
PROBLEM NO. 1 Since the ‘Z' a resident of Hubli working in Mysore, the
article could have caused severe imputation to the reputation
A newspaper containing defamatory article of ‘Z’, hence the case can be tried at places wherever the article
concerning ‘Z' a resident of Hubli working in Mysore was printed and circulated including Hubli and Mysore.
is printed and published at one place and is
circulated at another different place including Hubli In the case of P Lankesh V H Shivappa [Kar HC], the
and Mysore. The Magistrate Court of which place Petitioner, P Lankesh Published Lankesh Patrike from
Bangalore. The respondent resided at Davanagere. Petitioner
has the jurisdiction to entertain complaint by ‘Z'?
claimed that Davanegere Court has no jurisdiction. The Court
Give reason.
observed as under. It cannot be said that the act of publication
comes to an end as soon as one issue of the newspaper is
ANSWER:
Applicable Section 177 read with Section 179 released at one place. If that newspaper is despatched by the
printer and publisher to other places for being sold or
177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.—Every offence circulated the defamatory article gets published at each such
shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within place. Mere fact that the headquarters of a newspaper is based
whose local jurisdiction it was committed. at a particular place or that it is printed and published at one
place does not necessarily mean that there cannot be
publication of defamatory article contained in the paper at
179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence another place. If the defamatory imputation is made available
ensues. —When an act is an offence by reason of anything to public at several places, then the offence is committed at
which has been done and of a consequence which has each such place. Though the first offence may be committed
ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court at the place where it is printed and first published, it gets
within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or repeated wherever the newspaper is circulated at other places.
such consequence has ensued.
Conclusion: Accordingly, the offence can be tried at any court
Per Cr.P.C. section 177 read with Section 179, the ordinary in whose local jurisdiction, the offence was committed or such
place to inquiry and trial is the place where the criminal act is consequence. In the present case, A newspaper containing

24
defamatory article concerning ‘Z' is published at one place and
is circulated at another different place including Hubli and In the case of Radhesh Chandra vs State Of
Mysore. Under Cr.P.C. section 177 r/w Section 179, the court Rajasthan 1995, the High Court has stated the Cr.P.C.
having jurisdiction over any of such local area where paper is Section 181 (1) as reference like: “In our opinion, the context
circulated including Hubli and Mysore can try the case. in the case, where reference is made to the Sessions Court
requires that the Sessions Court must be of the area in whose
PROBLEM NO. 2 jurisdiction the offence is committed or as required by Section
181(1) Cr.P.C. either the offence is committed or the accused
‘A’, an accused, is charged with an offence of is found."
belonging to a gang of dacoits, operating in Madhya
Pradesh. He is arrested in Mumbai. Can he be tried Conclusion: Applying Cr.P.C. Section 181 (1), the place of trial
for the offence in the Mumbai Court? of dacoity can be tried in jurisdiction where the offence is
committed or where the accused arrested. In the present case,
ANSWER: ‘A’ belongs to a gang of dacoits operating in Madhya Pradesh,
Applicable Section 181(1) when ‘A’ has been arrested at Mumbai, he can be tried in
Mumbai Court itself.
Section 181: Place of trial in case of certain offences.
PROBLEM NO. 3
(1) Any offence of being a thug, or murder committed by a
thug, of dacoity, of dacoity with murder, of belonging to a
A and B are jointly committed dacoity at
gang of dacoits, or of escaping from custody, may be
Maharashtra and Karnataka in a span of one year.
inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local
They were arrested in Mumbai. Can they be tried
jurisdiction the offence was committed or the accused
person is found. jointly for the both offences in the Mumbai Court?
Decide.
According to Cr.P.C. Section 181 (1), any offence of belonging
to a gang of dacoit’s may be inquired into or tried by a Court ANSWER:
within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or Applicable Section 181(1) & 223
the accused person is found. In the present case, ‘A’ can be
Under Cr.P.C. Section 181(1) offence of dacoity may be tried
tried in Mumbai court where he is arrested.
by a court with in whose jurisdiction the offence was

25
committed or the accused person is found. Hence both can be ‘A’ is travelling from Mumbai to Bengaluru by train.
tried at Mumbai. During the night, his suitcase is stolen. The theft is
discovered at Belagavi. B is caught with the stolen
181. Place of trial in case of certain offences.
suitcase at Hubballi. Where can ‘B’ be tried for
(1) Any offence of being a thug, or murder committed by a theft? Decide.
thug, of dacoity, of dacoity with murder, of belonging to
a gang of dacoits, or of escaping from custody, may be ANSWER:
inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local
Applicable Section 183
jurisdiction the offence was committed or the accused
person is found. Section 183: Offence committed on journey or
voyage.—When an offence is committed whilst the person
by or against whom, or the thing in respect of which, the
223. What persons may be charged jointly. offence is committed is in the course of performing a
journey or voyage, the offence may be inquired into or tried
The following persons may be charged and tried together,
by a Court through or into whose local jurisdiction that
namely:
person or thing passed in the course of that journey or
(a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the
voyage.
course of the same transaction;
Chapter XIII deals with Jurisdiction of the Criminal courts in
Under Cr.P.C. Section 223, A and B can be tried jointly in the
inquiries and trials. Section 177 lays down general rule that
same trial at Mumbai Court, since the offence of dacoity has
every offence shall be ordinarily be enquired into and tried by
been jointly committed.
a court within whose jurisdiction it was committed. Section
178 to 189 embody provisions on the nature of exception s or
Conclusion: Per Cr.P.C. Section 181(1) r/w Section 223, A
alternatives to Section 177. According to Section 183, when
and B can be tried jointly in the same trial at Mumbai Court,
an offence is committed whist the person by whom committed
since the offence of dacoity was jointly committed and they
is in the course of performing a journey, the offence may be
were arrested at Mumbai.
tried by a court through whose local jurisdiction that person
PROBLEM NO. 4 (Important)
passed in the course of that journey or voyage.

26
Conclusion: Per Cr.P.C. Section 183, ‘B’ can be tried at the From the above, it is very clear that complainant need not
criminal courts at Mumbai or Belagavi or Hubballi in whose necessarily be the defamed person himself. The single most
local jurisdiction that ‘A’ (person) passed or A’s suitcase (thing) important point to be decided is who is aggrieved person. In
was found in the course of that journey or voyage. the given case, the disciple can be considered as aggrieved
person, then he is able to prove that the above imputations
TOPIC: CONDITIONS REQUISITE FOR INITIATION OF are against him personally or that he is the person aimed at.
PROCEEDINGS Then he can be held as an aggrieved person within the ambit
of Section 199(1) of the Code. In case not, the court shall
quash the complaint of defamation against Y.
PROBLEM NO. 1
In the case of Ganesh Anand Chela vs Swami Divyanand
Mr. X commits a defamation of Mr. Y, a Yoga Guru.
1980, the Delhi High Court held that:
Can a disciple of Mr. Y file a complaint for the
defamation? • A disciple of a spiritual head of an Ashram cannot file
a complaint for defamation against a person who has
ANSWER: made defamatory imputations against the Guru and his
Applicable Section 199
Dharam, as the disciple is not the "person aggrieved"
199. Prosecution for defamation.—(1) No Court shall take within the meaning of Section 199(1) of the Code of
cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of Criminal Procedure.
the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint • The court held that the complainant was not the
made by some person aggrieved by the offence. "person aggrieved" because the defamatory imputations
Provided that where such person is under the age of were against the spiritual head of the Ashram and not
eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from against the complainant personally. The court further
sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a observed that the complainant's grievance that he was
woman who, according to the local customs and manners, being ridiculed by other sanyasis and right-thinking
ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other members of society was a sentimental grievance and
person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint did not make him the "person aggrieved" within the
on his or her behalf. meaning of Section 199(1) of the Code.

27
 • The court quashed the complaint filed by the A charge is an allegation imposed against an accused. The
complainant under Section 500 of the Indian Penal basic foundation behind a charge is to inform in clear and
Code. precise manner to accused of the issues he is charged with. It
is of the utmost importance to any accused to know what the
Conclusion: Per Cr.P.C. Section 500, a disciple of Mr. Y file prosecution supposes to prove against him. Hence charge
cannot file a complaint for the defamation since he is not an needs to be formulated with great precision and clarity.
aggrieved person. The high court has stated the same in the Accordingly, Section 211 states about the contents of charges
case of Ganesh Anand Chela vs Swami Divyanand. and Section 212 states about the particulars as to time, place
and person respectively.
TOPIC: CHARGE
211. Contents of charge.—(1) Every charge under this
PROBLEM NO. 1 Code shall state the offence with which the accused is
charged.
‘A’ is charged for theft of a certain articles at a (2) If the law which creates the offence gives it any specific
certain time and place. The manner in which the name, the offence may be described in the charge by that
theft was committed was not stated, does it amount name only.
to charge framed against ‘A’? (3) If the law which creates the offence does not give it any
specific name, so much of the definition of the offence must
ANSWER: be stated as to give the accused notice of the matter with
Applicable Section 213 which he is charged.
(4) The law and section of the law against which the offence
213. When manner of committing offence must be is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the
stated. charge.
When the nature of the case is such that the particulars (5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a
mentioned in sections 211 and 212 do not give the accused statement that every legal condition required by law to
sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged, the constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular
charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner in case.
which the alleged offence was committed as will be (6) The charge shall be written in the language of the Court.
sufficient for that purpose. (7) If the accused, having been previously convicted of any
offence.

28
 212. Particulars as to time, place and person.—(1) The before the Magistrate, which referred exclusively to
charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and the case of Haidar Baksh. What will the court infer
place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against on this case?
whom, or the thing (if any) in 108 respect of which, it was
committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused ANSWER:
notice of the matter with which he is charged. Applicable Section 215

So, when the particulars mentioned in sections 211 and 212 Section 215: Effect of errors.—No error in stating either
do not give sufficient notice to the accused with which he is the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the
charged, Section 213 emphasizes that the charge shall include charge, and no omission to state the offence or those
manner in which the alleged offence was committed as will be particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as
sufficient for that purpose. material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such
error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice.
Conclusion: In the present case, A is charged for theft of
Certain Article, at a certain time and place. Per Cr.P.C Section In the famous case of Eshwaraiah vs. State of Karnataka
211 and 212, these information’s are sufficient amount to (1994), the two accused were charged separately for the
charge framed against ‘A’. Per Cr.P.C Section 213, the offence of murder in furtherance of common intention by the
manner for an offence like theft, need not be set out on the Supreme Court of India. However, in the charge form of one
chargesheet. Accordingly, Section 213 is not required for the accused, the name of the other accused was not mentioned,
theft effected and Section 212 is itself sufficient. Suppose A is but the charges were read over to each of the accused in the
accused of cheating B at a given time and place, the charge presence of each of the accused and their advocates. The
must set out the manner in which A cheated B. Court held that the irregularity made in the case is only a mere
one and doesn’t provide any ground for misunderstanding or
PROBLEM NO. 2 failure of justice.

A is charged with the murder of Khoda Baksh on the In the case of Bhagabat Das v. The State of Orissa (1989),
21st January, 1882. In fact, the murdered person's the court held that the insignificant irregularities in stating
name was Haidar Baksh, and the date of the murder the particulars of the offence in the charge will not affect the
was the 20th January, 1882. A was never charged trial or its outcome.
with any murder but one, and had heard the inquiry

29
Conclusion: Applying the above cases laws and per Cr.P.C. ‘A’ was charged for the murder of Haidar Baksh, but ‘A’ was
Section 215, the Court may infer from these facts that ‘A’ tried tried for the murder of Khoda Baksh. The witnesses present
for Haidar Baksh but the charge said Khoda Baksh shall not in his defence were witnesses in the case of Haidar Baksh. So,
be regarded as material because ‘A’ murdered a person the court shall regard A was misled and the error is material.
definitely and ‘A’ was not misled by the information of his
name and date of the incident. So, the court shall conclude Section 464 of Cr.P.C. states that no sentence or order given
that A was not misled, and that the error in the charge was by the competent jurisdiction shall be invalid merely on the
immaterial in the interest of justice. ground that no charge was framed or charged framed was
based on some error, omission, irregularity, including any
PROBLEM NO. 3 misjoinder of charge unless, in the opinion of the court of
appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has been
A was charged with murdering Haidar Baksh on the occasioned. If the court concludes there has been omission or
20th January, 1882, and Khoda Baksh (who tried to irregularity or error to frame a charge then the court may order
arrest him for that murder) on the 21st January, a charge to be framed and that the trial may be recommenced
1882. When charged for the murder of Haidar from that point immediately after framing of the charge or
Baksh, he was tried for the murder of Khoda Baksh. direct the new trial to be held upon the new charge framed.
The witnesses present in his defence were witnesses Provided, if the court is in the opinion that facts of the case
are such that no valid charge could be preferred against the
in the case of Haidar Baksh. What will the court
accused then the conviction shall be quashed.
infer?
Conclusion: While applying Cr.P.C. Section 215, the Court
ANSWER:
may infer from these facts that ‘A’ was misled by the facts/ ‘A’
Applicable Section 215
being charged for the murder of Haidar Baksh but ‘A’ was tried
Section 215: Effect of errors.—No error in stating either for Khoda Baksh. ‘A’ has brought witnesses in his defence
the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the were witnesses in the case of Haidar Baksh, so ‘A’ was
charge, and no omission to state the offence or those definitely misled and that the error in the charge was
particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material.
material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such
error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice.

30
PROBLEM NO. 4
Conclusion: While applying the Cr.P.C. Section 215, it is clear
A is charged under section 242 of the Indian Penal A was not misled by this omission, the error shall not be
Code with having been "in possession of counterfeit regarded as material. The error is not material since the
coin, having known at the time when he became charges per section 242 of the Indian Penal Code clearly
possessed thereof that such coin was counterfeit." states that A has possessed the counterfeit coin knowingly at
He challenges his conviction on the ground that the time of possession. So, the Court dismiss the appeal of ‘A’
and convict him.
there was error in the charge because the word
"fraudulently" was omitted. Decide.
PROBLEM NO. 5
ANSWER:
‘A’ is accused of an offence. The court has altered
Applicable Section 215
the charge without explaining it to him. ‘A’ is
convicted for the said offence. Is the conviction
Section 215: Effect of errors.—No error in stating either
the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the legal?
charge, and no omission to state the offence or those
particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as ANSWER:
material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such Applicable Section 216
error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice.
216. Court may alter charge—1) Any Court may alter or
A has been charged with the offence of possessing counterfeit add to any charge at any time before judgment is
coin at the time knowingly that the coin counterfeit. So, the pronounced. (2) Every such alteration or addition shall be
charge is clear that ‘A’ was in possession of counterfeit coin read and explained to the accused.
having known at the time. So, the omission of word
"fraudulently" does not significantly affect the charges Under Section 216(1) Court may alter or add to any charge at
and the court shall dismiss the challenges by ‘A’ since his any time before the Judgement is pronounced. Sub section (2)
requires that every such addition shall be read and explained
conviction has merits. If the contention is only about the
to the accused. Sub section (2) mandates not just reading
word but not the charge under I.P.C Section 242, the
over, but accused must be explained of alteration. This means
court shall declare the error to be immaterial. court should explain the charge so as to enable accused to

31
understand it. TOPIC: COMPLAINT TO MAGISTRATE

Importance of Charge: The basic foundation behind a charge PROBLEM NO. 1

is to inform in clear and precise manner to accused of the
issues he is charged with. It is of the utmost importance to ‘A’ finds that ‘B’ has been beaten and injured badly
any accused to know what the prosecution supposes to prove by a group of persons. Next day ‘A’ filed a complaint
against him. It is the fundamental principle of criminal law is against some of the persons of the group whom ‘A’
to inform the accused about the offence he is charged with. has recognized. Can the court take cognizance of the
complaint?
In the case Sabbi Mallesu v State of AP, SC Held that the
power of the Court to alter the charges is neither in doubt nor ANSWER:
in dispute but in terms of Sub-section 2 of Section 246, Appliable Section 190.
Cr.P.C., it was obligatory on the part of the learned Sessions
Judge to bring it to the notice of the accused and explain the 190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.—(1) Subject
same to the accused. The same having not been done, it to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first
cannot be said that the requirements of Section 216 of the class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially
Criminal Procedure Code were duly complied with. empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take
cognizance of any offence—
Having regard to the importance of Charge in ensuring fair (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute
trail, it could be said that Conviction becomes illegal if altered such offence;
charge is not read and explained to accused. (b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other
Conclusion: While applying the Cr.P.C. Section 216, A’s than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that
conviction shall be found as illegal since the court has altered such offence has been committed.
the charge without being read and explaining it to him. A has (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any
rights to challenge the conviction and set aside his conviction Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under
since the charge has been altered without informing him. sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his
competence to inquire into or try.

32
Under Cr.P.C. Section 190 (1) (a) magistrate of First Class may Section 190 Cr.P.C. lays down as to how cognizance of
take cognisance of offence upon receiving a compliant of facts offences can be taken by Magistrates. It is by taking
which constitutes such offence. Also, Magistrate of Second cognizance of an offence that the court machinery is set in
class under Cr.P.C. Section 190 (2), specifically empowered in motion in respect of criminal cases. If the Magistrate is taking
this behalf by Chief Judicial Magistrate can take cognizance cognizance on the basis of a complaint, which is generally, but
of offence. As a general rule any person having knowledge of not always, a private complaint, then he has to proceed further
the commission of office may set the law in motion by a in accordance with the provisions of Sections 200 to 203
compliant, even though he is not personally interested or Cr.P.C., and if needed, also under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
affected.
While the power to take cognizance falls under Section 190
The Magistrate may order an investigation under Section Cr.P.C., the power to question the complainant under oath
156(3) of the CrPC if he does not immediately take note of the and additional witnesses for the purpose of verifying the
offence. By taking such a step, the Magistrate is spared from complaint is spelled forth in Section 200 Cr.P.C. So, Sections
spending his valuable time by looking into a subject. A 190 and 200 of the CrPC are both pertinent in the context of
magistrate can therefore choose to order a police inquiry as an a complaint matter. Section 200 is relevant only for a
alternative to taking cognizance of the offence. Upon receiving “complaint”, the cognizance of which is taken under clause (a)
a police report, the magistrate has the authority to: of Section 190(1). Section 200 Cr.P.C. is not relevant when the
1. To proceed with recording the statements made under cognizance is being taken under clause (b) of Section 190(1)
oath by the complainant and the present witnesses in on the basis of a “police report” which is filed by police under
accordance with Section 200 of the CrPC and to take Section 173 of Cr.P.C. after completion of the investigation.
cognizance of the offence based on the complaint that
was filed against him. In certain “complaint” cases, action may have to be taken by
2. If he disagrees with the police report, immediately take the magistrate under the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C.,
cognizance under Section 190 and submit an enquiry i.e., an inquiry by the magistrate himself or an investigation
as per Section 200 of the CrPC. by police. After these steps, if the magistrate does not find
3. Reject the police report and request an investigation sufficient ground to proceed further, he may dismiss the
under Section 202 of the CrPC before taking any further complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.; on the other hand, if he
action under Section 203 of the CrPC. finds sufficient ground to proceed, he may issue process under
Section 204 Cr.P.C.

33
In the case of State of Manipur v. Miss Ranjana • Under Cr.P.C. Section 200, the magistrate can proceed
Manohermayum (2022), the High Court observed that with recording the statements made under oath by the
according to Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a complainant and the present witnesses.
magistrate may take cognizance of any offence either after • Per Cr.P.C. Section 204, a magistrate shall take
receiving a complaint describing the facts that constitute the cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for
offence, after receiving a police report of those facts, after proceeding.
receiving information from a source other than a police officer, • Per Cr.P.C. Section 203, a magistrate can dismiss a
or after having knowledge that the offence has been complaint.
committed. Thus, a court has ability to take cognizance of A’s complaint
directly ‘A’ finds that ‘B’ has been beaten and injured badly by
In this case Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad a group of persons.
Tunda (2015), the Supreme Court observed that the
magistrate benefits from a police report under Section TOPIC: JOINDER OF CHARGES
190(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and he has
knowledge of the commission of an offence under Section PROBLEM NO. 1
190(1)(c). However, he simply has a complaint before him per
Section 190(1)(a) of the CrPC. As a result, the Code states that A is accused of a theft on one occasion, and of
the magistrate may exercise his or her authority to take causing grievous hurt on another occasion. Can he
cognizance after receiving “a complaint of circumstances be separately charged and convicted for these
which constitute such offence.” Therefore, the Magistrate shall offences in the same trial?
not take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. if
the complaint does not appear to indicate the commission of ANSWER:
any offence. The complaint should be flatly dismissed. Applicable Cr.P.C. Section 218(1)

A cannot be charged separately and tried in same trial for

Conclusion: The court has the ability to take cognizance of
distinct offences. Here A is accused of a theft on one occasion,
A’s complaint under Cr.P.C. Section 190. Upon that:
and of causing grievous hurt on another occasion. So, they
• A magistrate can order the police investigation under
must be separately charged and separately tried for the
Cr.P.C. Section 156(3).
theft and causing grievous hurt.

34
 PROBLEM NO. 2
Section 218: Separate charges for distinct offences.
Mr. ‘A’ has committed four offences of embezzlement
(1) For every distinct offence of which any person is within a period of one year. Can he be tried for all
accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such offences at one trial?
charge shall be tried separately:
ANSWER: Applicable Section 219
Provided that where the accused person, by an application
in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of opinion that
Section 219: Three offences of same kind within year
such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby, the
may be charged together.—When a person is accused of
Magistrate may try together all or any number of the
more offences than one of the same kind committed within
charges framed against such person.
the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such
offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he
In the case of Ranchhod Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number
1965 SC 1248, it was held that it is at the discretion of the of them not exceeding three.
court whether to apply Section 219, Section 220 and section
223 of the Cr.P.C. or resort to Section 218. The accused has According to Cr.P.C. Section 218, generally, each offence an
not been given this right to resort to joinder of charges. The accused person is charged with should have its own separate
Court held that there is nothing illegal in trying each of the charge and each of these charges should be tried
several offences separately. individually. This means that each offence is considered
separately and is tried as such. However, Sections 219, 220,
Conclusion: ‘A’ shall be separately charge for distinct offences 221 and 223 override the rule mentioned in Section 218 and
and tried separately per Cr.P.C. Section 218. A is accused of a deal with when charges can be joined together. In other words,
theft on one occasion, and of causing grievous hurt on another Sections 219 to 223 discuss the joining of charges. Section
occasion. These two offences are not done in the same 219 permits trial of three offences of the same kind
transactions. So, they must be separately charged and committed within a period of twelve months.
separately tried at the court for the theft and causing
grievous hurt respectively. Conclusion: Per Cr.P.C. Section 219, instead of three
offences, Mr. ‘A’ has committed four offences in a year, so the
joinder in one trial is not permissible.

35
PROBLEM NO. 3 PROBLEM NO. 4

A rescues B, a person in lawful custody, and in so A commits house-breaking by day with intent to
doing causes grievous hurt to C, a constable in commit adultery, and commits, in the house so
whose custody B was. Can A be charged and entered, adultery with B's wife. Can A be charged
convicted of distinct offences in same trial? and convicted of distinct offences in same trial?

ANSWER: Applicable Section 220(1) ANSWER: Applicable Section 220(1)

220. Trial for more than one offence. — (1) If, in one 220. Trial for more than one offence. — (1) If, in one
series of acts so connected together as to form the same series of acts so connected together as to form the same
transaction, more offences than one are committed by the transaction, more offences than one are committed by the
same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial
for, every such offence. for, every such offence.

Per Cr.P.C. Section 220(1), ‘A’ has committed two offences in

the same transaction. A rescued ‘B’ from lawful custody and Per Cr.P.C. Section 220(1), ‘A’ has committed two offences in
causing grievous hurt to C, a constable in whose custody B the same transaction.
was.
OFFENCE 1: IPC S.454. Lurking house-trespass or house-
OFFENCE 1: IPC S.225. Resistance or obstruction to lawful breaking in order to commit offence punishable with
apprehension of another person. imprisonment.
OFFENCE 2: IPC S.333. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to OFFENCE 2: IPC S. 497. Adultery.
deter public servant from his duty.
Conclusion: Per Cr.P.C. Section 220(1), ‘A’ may be charged
Conclusion: Per Cr.P.C. Section 220(1), ‘A’ may be charged with, and convicted of two offences under sections 454 and
with, and convicted of two offences under sections 225 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code in the same trial.
333 of the Indian Penal Code in the same trial.

36
PROBLEM NO. 5 PROBLEM NO. 6

A entices B, the wife of C, away from C, with intent 'A' dishonestly uses a forged document as genuine
to commit adultery with B, and then commits evidence, in order to convict 'B' a public servant, of
adultery with her. Can A be charged and convicted an offence u/s-167 of IPC. Two offences were
of distinct offences in same trial? included in one charge and were tried together in a
single trial by the magistrate and were convicted.
ANSWER: Applicable Section 220(1) Decide the validity of the order

220. Trial for more than one offence. — (1) If, in one ANSWER: Applicable Section 220(3)
series of acts so connected together as to form the same
transaction, more offences than one are committed by the 220. Trial for more than one offence.
same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial
for, every such offence. 3. If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within
two or more separate definitions of any law in force for
Per Cr.P.C. Section 220(1), ‘A’ has committed two offences in the time being by which offences are defined or punished,
the same transaction. the person accused of them may be charged with, and
OFFENCE 1: IPC S. 498. Enticing or taking away or detaining tried at one trial for, each of such offences.
with criminal intent a married woman.
OFFENCE 2: IPC S. 497. Adultery. Per Cr.P.C. Section 220(3), ‘A’ has committed an act of
dishonestly using a forged document as genuine evidence.
Conclusion: Per Cr.P.C. Section 220(1), ‘A’ may be charged This shall constitute offences falling within like two separate
definitions in Indian Penal code i.e. Voluntary hurt and
with, and convicted of two offences under sections 498 and
assault.
497 of the Indian Penal Code in the same trial

IPC Sections:
OFFENCE DEFINITION 1: 471. Using as genuine a forged
document or electronic record.
OFFENCE DEFINITION 2: 196. Using evidence known to be false.

37
 OFFENCE DEFINITION 2: IPC S. 323. Punishment for voluntarily
Conclusion: Applying Cr.P.C. Section 220(3), A may be causing hurt.
separately charged with, and convicted of, offences under
sections 471 (read with section 466) and 196 of that Code. Conclusion: Applying Cr.P.C. Section 220(3), ‘A’ may be
charged with, and convicted of offences failing under two
PROBLEM NO. 7 definitions under sections 352 and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code in the same trial per).
A wrongfully strikes B with a cane. Can A be and
convicted of his act constituting offences falling PROBLEM NO. 8 (Important)
within like two or more separate definitions of any
law like voluntary hurt and assault in one trial? ‘A’ commits robbery on ‘B’ and in doing so
voluntarily causes hurt to him. Can he be separately
ANSWER: Applicable Section 220(3) charged and convicted for these offences in the same
trial.
220. Trial for more than one offence.
ANSWER:
(3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two Applicable Cr.P.C. Section 220(4).
or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time
being by which offences are defined or punished, the person Section 220: Trial for more than one offence.
accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial
for, each of such offences. (4). If several acts, of which one or more than one would by
itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when
Per Cr.P.C. Section 220(3), ‘A’ has committed an act of combined a different offence, the person accused of them
wrongfully strikes B with a cane which shall constitute may be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence
offences falling within like two separate definitions in Indian constituted by such acts when combined, and for any
Penal code i.e. Voluntary hurt and assault. offence constituted by any one, or more, of such acts.

IPC Sections: IPC Sections:

OFFENCE DEFINITION 1: IPC S. 352. Punishment for assault or OFFENCE 1: IPC S.392. Punishment for robbery.
criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation.

38
OFFENCE 2: IPC. S. 323. Punishment for voluntarily causing
hurt.
OFFENCE 3: IPC. S. 394. Voluntarily causing hurt in 222. When offence proved included in offence charged.
committing robbery.
(1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of
OFFENCE 3: OFFENCE 2 + OFFENCE 1 several particulars, a combination of some only of which
constitutes a complete minor offence, and such
Conclusion: According Cr.P.C. Section 221(4), ‘A’ has done combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are
the three separate offences of robbery, voluntarily causing not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence,
hurt and voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery. So, though he was not charged with it.
‘A’ can he be separately charged and convicted for these
offences in the same trial. So, ‘A’ may be separately charged According to Cr.P.C. Section 222, ‘A’ may be convicted of
with, and convicted of, offences under sections 323, 392 and criminal breach of trust under the said section 406 since
394 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) in the same trial. the offence proved included in offence charged under
section 407. The trial reveals that it constitutes a
PROBLEM NO. 9 complete minor offence, hence ‘A’ can be convicted of
minor offence which is included in offence charged in the
A is charged, under section 407 of the Indian Penal same trial.
Code (45 of 1860), with criminal breach of trust in
respect of property entrusted to him as a carrier. It IPC Sections:
appears, that he did commit criminal breach of trust OFFENCE CHARGED: IPC S.407. Criminal breach of trust by
under section 406 of that Code in respect of the carrier, etc.
property, but that it was not entrusted to him as a OFFENCE PROVED: IPC. S.406. Punishment for criminal breach
carrier. Can he be convicted for another offence in of trust.
the same trial?
Conclusion: Per Cr.P.C. Section 222, ‘A’ can be convicted for
ANSWER: another offence in the same trial since the offence proved in
Applicable Cr.P.C. Section 222 included in the offence charged for with criminal breach of
trust in respect of property.

39
 Conclusion: Applying Cr.P.C. Section 221, A may be charged
PROBLEM NO. 10 (Important) with theft, receiving stolen property, criminal breach of trust
and cheating, or he may be charged with having committed
‘A’ is accused of an act which may amount to theft theft, or receiving stolen property, or criminal breach of trust
or cheating.
or receiving the stolen property or criminal breach
of trust or cheating. How he may be charged?
PROBLEM NO. 11
ANSWER:
A is charged, under section 325 of the Indian Penal
Applicable Cr.P.C. Section 221
Code (45 of 1860), with causing grievous hurt. He
221. Where it is doubtful what offence has been proves that he acted on grave and sudden
committed. provocation. Can he be convicted for another offence
under section 335 of that code in the same trial?
(1) If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it
is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be ANSWER:
proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with Applicable Cr.P.C. Section 222
having committed all or any of such offences, and any
number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be 222. When offence proved included in offence charged.
charged in the alternative with having committed some one
of the said offences. (1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of
several particulars, a combination of some only of which
constitutes a complete minor offence, and such
In the present case, A is accused of an act which may amount
combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are
to theft, or receiving stolen property, or criminal breach of
not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence,
trust or cheating. He may be charged with theft, receiving
though he was not charged with it.
stolen property, criminal breach of trust and cheating, or he
may be charged with having committed theft, or receiving
According to Cr.P.C. Section 222, ‘A’ may be convicted of
stolen property, or criminal breach of trust or cheating.
criminal breach of trust under the said section 335 since
the offence proved included in offence charged under

40
section 325. The trial reveals that it constitutes a trial of several persons in certain specified cases because
complete minor offence, hence ‘A’ can be convicted of of some basic connection between the various offences
minor offence which is included in offence charged in the committed by them.
same trial.
223. What persons may be charged jointly.—The
IPC Sections: following persons may be charged and tried together,
OFFENCE CHARGED: IPC S.325. Punishment for voluntarily namely:—
causing grievous hurt. (a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the
OFFENCE PROVED: IPC S.335. Voluntarily causing grievous course of the same transaction;
hurt on provocation. (b) persons accused of an offence and persons accused of
abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence;
Conclusion: Per Cr.P.C. Section 222, ‘A’ can be convicted for
another offence in the same trial since the offence proved in Under Section 223(b) persons accused of an offence and
included in the offence charged for with criminal breach of persons accused of abatement or attempt to commit,
trust in respect of property. such offence may be charged jointly.

PROBLEM NO. 12 Conclusion: Applying Cr.P.C. Section 223(a) and (b), in the
present case by supplying weapons X and Y abate the
‘X’ and ‘Y’ assisted ‘Z’ to kill ‘A’ by providing ‘Z’ the crime and hence X, Y and Z can be tried jointly per
weapons which was used to kill ‘A’. Whether ‘X’, ‘Y’ Cr.P.C. Section 223. Also, the section uses the term
and ‘Z’ are charged jointly or separately for the “may” which suggests they may also be tried individually
same offence. Advise. also.

ANSWER: TOPIC: SECURITY FOR KEEPING THE PEACE AND

Applicable Cr.P.C. Section 223(a) and (b) FOR GOOD BEHAVIOUR

Section 223 deals with circumstances in which persons PROBLEM NO. 1

may be charged jointly. The section provides for Joint

41
A Magistrate directs 'B' to execute a bond for 108. Security for good behaviour from persons
maintaining good behaviour for a period of two disseminating seditious matters.— (1)….not exceeding
years. Discuss the validity of the order. one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.

ANSWER: 109. Security for good behaviour from suspected

Applicable Cr.P.C. Section 106 persons.— …not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate
thinks fit.
106. Security for keeping the peace on conviction.—(1)
When a Court of Session or Court of a Magistrate of the first 110. Security for good behaviour from habitual
class convicts a person of any of the offences specified in offenders.—…
sub-section (2) or of abetting any such offence and is of such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided,
opinion that it is necessary to take security from such require such person to show cause why he should not be
person for keeping the peace, the Court may, at the time of ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good
passing sentence on such person, order him to execute a behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as
bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for the Magistrate thinks fit.
such period, not exceeding three years, as it thinks fit.
Chapter VIII, Section 106-110 deal with security for good
behaviour.
107. Security for keeping the peace in other cases.—(1)
When an Executive Magistrate receives information that
• Under Section 106, a magistrate can order a person,
any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or
who is convicted of an offence, to execute a security
disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that
bond for keeping peace on conviction for a maximum
may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the
period of three years.
public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter • Under Sections 107 to 109, a magistrate can order a
provided, require such person to show cause why he should person, who is likely to cause a breach of peace or
not be ordered to execute a bond 1[with or without sureties,] public tranquillity, to execute a security bond for
for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one keeping peace for a maximum period of one years.
year, as the Magistrate thinks fit. • Under Section 110, a magistrate can order a person,
who is an habitual offender, to execute a security bond

42
 for keeping peace on conviction for a maximum period 125 of CrPC was conceived to alleviate the agony, anguish,
of three years. and financial suffering of a woman who has left her
matrimonial home for the reasons set forth in the provision so
Conclusion: In the given problem it is not stated under which that the Court can make appropriate arrangements for her
category A is covered from Cr.P.C Sections 106 to 110. Only if and her children if they are with her. The term “sustenance”
A is convict or habitual offender, as per Section 106 or 110, does not always imply that one is living an animal’s existence.
he can be directed to execute bond for 2 years. In other two She has the legal right to conduct her life in the same manner
cases he cannot be so directed so. as she would have in her husband’s home.

TOPIC: MAINTAINENCE
125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and
PROBLEM NO. 1 parents.
(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses
to maintain—
A wife, who is unable to maintain herself, files an
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
application claiming maintenance against her (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether
husband under section 125, Cr.P.C. She also married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
requests the court to order for interim maintenance (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married
pending final disposal of the matter. The husband daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is,
objects the demand of interim maintenance on the by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury
ground that there is no such provision in the said unable to maintain itself, or
section of the Code. Decide. (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or
herself,
ANSWER: a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such
Applicable Cr.P.C. Section 125 neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly
allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child,
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) father or mother, at such monthly rate 1*** as such
requires a husband to support his wife (who is otherwise Magistrate thinks fit and to pay the same to such person as
unable to maintain herself). The Supreme Court in Bhuwan the Magistrate may from time to time direct
Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors (2014) has held that Section

43
The Delhi High Court had ruled in Kusum Sharma v. The Family Court ordered maintenance to the daughter in the
Mahinder Kumar Sharma (2020) that maintenance is not amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of the verdict.
only a constitutional right but also an element of universal The Family Court also held that the appellant-wife would be
human rights. The purpose of paying maintenance is twofold, entitled to no more than the interim maintenance she was
getting under the Act of 1955.
• First, to prevent vagrancy as a result of strained
husband-wife relationships, and
• To guarantee that the poor litigating spouse is not Conclusion: Based on the above case, a wife, who is unable
crippled as a result of a lack of funds to defend or to maintain herself, can file an application claiming
prosecute the case. maintenance against her husband under section 125, Cr.P.C.
She can also request the court to order for interim
In addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of maintenance pending final disposal of the matter. The
the CrPC or any other legislation in effect, an aggrieved wife is husband shall not object the demand of interim maintenance
entitled to maintenance under Section 20 of the Protection on the ground that there is no such provision in the said
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA). The section of the Code.
amount of maintenance must be adequate, fair, reasonable,
and commensurate with the injured person’s quality of living. TOPIC: APPEALS

In the case of Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas & Another v. PROBLEM NO. 1

Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas & another (2015), the
Supreme Court was considering an appeal made before it by a 'A' first-class magistrate convicts 'X' on his plea of
wife and her minor daughter. Her son was living with his guilty. 'X' desires to appeal against the conviction.
father, the appellate’s husband, who was maintaining him. Decide.
Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, the Family Court ordered the payment of interim
ANSWER:
maintenance to the wife and minor daughter of Rs. 6,000/-
Applicable Cr.P.C. Section 375
per month. Interim support of 3,000/- per month was also
granted under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
payable to both parties. By Order dated 31.01.2009, the
Family Court ultimately resolved the maintenance procedures.

44
 TOPIC: GENERAL PROVISIONS Of INQUIRIES AND
375. No appeal in certain cases when accused pleads TRIALS
guilty.—Notwithstanding anything contained in section
374, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has PROBLEM NO. 1
been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal, —
(a) if the conviction is by a High Court; or A is charged with and tried for robbery. He questions
(b) if the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan
the validity of prosecution on the ground that he has
Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or second
already been convicted by a Magistrate of second-
class, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.
class under section 380, Indian Penal Code for theft
Section 375 of Cr. P.C. is based on the principle that a plea of in a dwelling house. Decide.
guilty by an accused person operates as a waiver of the right
to question the legality or his conviction on such a plea. But ANSWER:
before applying the bar provided in this section against a
convicted person, it must be ascertained that the plea of his Applicable Cr.P.C. Section 300
guilt has not been obtained by trickery, and that it is a genuine
plea. It must be stated that a person when pleading guilty, 300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried
does not commit himself to accept the punishment that would for same offence
be passed against him irrespective of its nature and legality.
Therefore, there is no reason to deny him the right to challenge (3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act
the extent or legality of the sentence by way of appeal. causing consequences which, together with such act,
constituted a different offence from that of which he was
Conclusion: Applying Cr.P.C Section 375, it can be rightly convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last mentioned
said that the accused who has pleaded guilty has no rights to offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not
appeal in cases conviction is by a High Court or if the known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he
conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan Magistrate or was convicted.
Magistrate of the first or second class. In the given problem ‘A’
first-class magistrate convict’s ‘X’ on his plea of guilty. So ‘X’ According to Cr.P.C. Section 300, A is charged by a Magistrate
cannot prefer an appeal against the conviction except as to the of the second class with, and convicted by him of, theft of
extent or legality of the sentence.

45
property from the person of B. A may subsequently be
charged with, and tried for, robbery on the same facts.

According to Indian Penal Code, 1860, there is difference

between theft and robbery.

390. Robbery.—In all robbery there is either theft or

extortion.

When theft is robbery.—Theft is “robbery” if, in order to

the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or
in carrying away or attempting to carry away property
obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end voluntarily
causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt
or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant
hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

Conclusion: Per Cr.P.C. Section 300, ‘A’ can be tried on

robbery since it is different than theft in terms of execution of
crime and it constitutes bigger offence than theft. It shall be
tried by a Magistrate of first-class since the punishment can
extend to ten years.

46