Strategy to Handle Police



As a key agency of the Criminal Justice administration the Police is
responsible for performing multi-faceted functions such’ as’ the prevention
of crime, maintenance of law and order, conduct of investigation of crimes,
production of undertrials before the Courts and post sentence survillence
over the criminals: etc. In view of the functional’ peculiarities the Police
tends to become the frontal’ formal agency to come in contact, with the raw
realities a/crime including the accused and the victims. All this makes the
Police not only an all pervasive criminal justice agency but also exposes it
to frequent social censures both of formal as well as informal nature, and
makes them the centre of lot of controversies regarding their professional
In a Rule of Law society the Police, like the other criminal justice agencies,
functions within the legal framework of the Constitutional and the Municipal
Laws that comprise mainly of the Constitution of India, 1950, The Code of
criminal Procedure, 1973, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Protection of
Human Rights Act, 1993 and the Police Act etc. Though the vide range of
statutory laws constitute, the normative basis for the Police functions, but at
the actual functional level, often’ doubts and controversies arise, regarding
the, ambit and interpretations of the statutory rules, thereby calling for
frequent adjudications by the courts. In the tradition of the Theory of
Precedent the judgments of the appellate, courts have a binding or
persuasive value for the later decisions on the point. Particularly the
“judgments of the Supreme Court of India which are accorded the highest
precedential value in terms of the Article 141 of the Constitution which
reads : The Law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all
courts within’ the Territory of India”. Thus for all the courts as well as, other
State agencies, the Supreme court, rulings, constitute the binding law,
violation of which can ‘entail contempt proceedings. Similalry, for the
concerned State the judgements of the relevant High Court constitute the
binding law.
All this accords to the large number of Supreme Court and High Court
rulings relating to the various aspects of Police functioning immense
significance not only for the legal professionals, but also for the rank and
file of the Police Force. The present endeavour attempts a compilation of
the significant Supreme Court and High Court rulings of the past decade.
Effort has been made to present the rulings in a systematic and simplified
manner by briefly analysing the facts, main argument and the ruling of the
Court. For the benefit of the non-technical readers each individual case is
classified subject-wise and preceeded by a issue-wise head-note. The
general Case-index also provides an issue-wise analysis of the each case.
The compilation is mainly based on the Supreme Court and the High Court
decisions reported in the Supreme Court Cases (SCC) and the Criminal
Law Journal (Cr. LJ.)
It is bur fond hope that the compilation will prove useful for the widespectrum
of the Criminal Justice functionaries, who in turn would be able to
strengthen the overall Rule of ‘Law foundations, of our criminal justice




I. Police and Investigation:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction and powers of investigation………………1-4
2. F.I.R: & Registration of F.I.R………………………………………5-13
3. Interrogation……………………………………………………….14-17
4. Arrest and Custody……………………………………………….18-25
5. Handcuffing and Security……………………………………..….26-32
6. Search and Seizure…………………………………………..…..33-38
7. Remand ……………………………………………………………39-40
8. Charge-Sheet ……………………………………………..………41-48
9. Intervention by the Magistrate or the Executive……………….49-57
II. Police and Evidentiary Issues:
1. Recording of Confessions……………………………………..….58-59
2. Confessions under the Influence……………………………..…60-62
of Police (SS. 25,26,27)
3. Recording of Dying Declaration……………………………….…..63-64
4. Police as Witness-Trap Witness etc……………………………..65-68
5. Use of Case Diary in Trial……………………………………………..69
6. Evidentiary value of Site. Plan……………………………………..…70
III. Police and Human Rights/Fundamental Rights:
1. Right to Life and Personal Liberty…………………………….…71-77
2. Right against Torture and Indignities……………………………….78
IV. Miscellaneous:
1. Externment……….………………………………………………..79-85
2. Power of Police Surveillance…………….………………………86-89
3. Sanction of Route for religious procession…………………………90
4. Permission to organize Public Meeting…………………….…..91-92
5. Licencing places of Public Entertainment………………………93-94
6. Directions for providing Police Security…………………….…..95-96
7. Limitation incompliant/Suit against Police personal………..…97-99
8. Regulating Horse-racing and Gaming……………………….100-101




Case Index:. Supreme Court
I ”
Sr.” Nameofthe Case Citation
I. Legal Issue(s)
Involved’ Page”

1- Arvirider Singh
.. (1995)
Supp (3)
Right to life and
vs Stte of UP sec 716 liberty.
2 Bhagwan Singh (1992) 3
SCC Interrogation. 14
vs State of Punjab 249
Citizen for
Democracy “1996 Cr.Ll. . Handcuffing 28
vs State of Assam 3247
4 CRI. (1992) 3 sce . Remand 39
vs Anupam J.
Kulkarni 141
5 Directorate of 1999 Cr.Ll. Arrest and Custody 21
Enforcement 2269 Investigation
vs Deepak
6 D$. Basu (1997) 1 sce Handcuffing. )0”
“vs State ofW.B. 426
7” Dr. K.R.
“1996 Cr.Ll. ”

Regulating Horse
vs State of Tamil
Nadu and gaming
8″ Gulam Hussain 2000 Cr.Ll. ” Dying Declaration to 64
vs State of Delhi” 3949 Police
9 ” lnder Singh (1995) 3 see . Right” to life and
personal 72
vi; State of Punjab 702 liberty.
10 In re: M.P. Dwivedi 1996 Cr.LJ. Handcuffing. 26
. .
11 ” Jagdish Narain”(1996) 8
SCC Evidentiary”vaue of
site 70
vs State ofU.P.199 I. plan'”
, j
Sr. Name of the Case. . Citation
Involved rage
Guidelines for arrest
12 Joginder Kumar (1994) 4 see
‘vs State oiU.P. 260 !
: i
, 1994 Cr.LJ.
1981 I
.. I
13 Kartar’Singh (1994) 3 see Guidelis for recording S8
it . i .
con eSSlOn
vs State of Punjab
14 K. Veeraswami (1991) 3 SCC Charge-sheet 43
, YS Union of India ,655

’15Madhu Bala 1997 Cr.L.J. Intervention by . 52
vs Suresh Kumar 375
7 ‘ Magistrte’s for
, i ‘
registrati?n ofF.I.R.
16 Police as witness 68
Megha Singh ‘(1996) 11 sec
: i ‘ .
709 ,. i
vs State of Haryana
17 M. Krishna (1999) 3 see F.I.R. d Registration
247 I
vs State of
F .I.R. I
18 Nirmal Kanti Roy (1998)4 SCC’ Magisuate’s
. i
vs State ofW.B. 590 in inve*igation
‘ . .
19 Paras Yadav .. 1999 Cr;LJ. Dying declaration
before 63
vs State of Bihar 1122 Police, Officer
– ‘i
20 People’s Union for (1997) 3 sec Right t life and 75
I ‘. , . ”
Civil Liberties 433
personal liberty
: i
vs Union ofIndia
21 Prof. Sumer Chand 1993 Cr.Ll. Limitation in suit . 97
. / . P r
3531 ‘ comp amt against 0
vs Union oflndia
. I’ .
. I
Sr. Name ‘of the Case Citation Legal Issue(s)
Involved Page
Ramsinh Bavaji
1994 Cr. L.J.
F .I.R. and
Registration of
vs State of Gujrat F .LR.
23 Satvinder KaUT (1999) 8
SCC Territorial jurisdiction 2
vs State (Delhi) 728 and power of
, . investigation
24 Sharnshul Kanwar (1995) see Evidentiary value
orease 69
vs State ofU.P.’ 430 diary
25 S.P. Vaithianathan 1’i94 Cr.LJ. : Limitation in
nn 2265 “against police
. 26 State of Andhra ‘ (1990) 2
SCC Dlay in’ filing charge- . 42
Pradesh 340 . sheet
vs P.V. Pavitharan
27 . State of Haryana (1992) Supp.
intervention 49
vs Bhajan Lal SCC 335 in investigation
28 State of
Maharashtra . 2000 Cr.Ll. Confession and
seizure 60
vs Damu Gopiriath 2301
29 State of Orissa (1996)6 sec Police’s power’ of 1
vs Sharat Chandra
Sahu . 435 investigation
30 State of Punjab 1994 Cr.Ll. Search and seIzure , 33
vsBalbir Singh 3702
31 State of West (1993) 3 sce Charge-sheet 44
vs Falguni Dutta . 288.
32 Supreme CouIi
Legal (1991) 3 sce Right to life and
personal ’71’
Aid Committee .482 liberty .’
vs State of Bihar
33 Tahir (1996; 3 see Police as witness 65. .
vs State (Delhi) 338
Case Index: High Court ‘
Sr. Name of the Case. Cit’ltion . Legal Issue(s) Involved Page
1 A. Nallassivan 1995 CLLl. 2754 Registration of F .I.R. 13
. vs State of Tamil Nadu
2 Ashak Hussain Allah . . 1999
Cr.LJ.2201 Interrogation incustody’ 16
Detha vs
Assistant Collector of
. Customs (P)

Badshah Restaurant 1998 Cr.Ll. 4121
Power to grant .licence
tor ’93
vs ‘. places of public
Commissioner of
4 Christian
Community. 1995 Cr.Ll. 4223 Arrest and custody of 24
– .
Welfare Council female persons
vs Government of
5 Dater Gafar Suleman 1999 Cr.Ll, 3471 Externment 85
vs The State of
Dr. Arvindya Gopal
Mitra 1993 Cr.Ll. 2096 PermIssIon to organise 91-
vs State of West
Bengal public meeting
GehoheE- Miran
shah 1993 Cr.Ll 406 Sanction of route for 90
vs The Secretary,
religious processIOn
DepttjGovt. of A.P,
8 G. Subas Reddy 1997 CLL]. 1296 Direction fol’ providing. 95
vs State of AP. police security
9 Hussainmiya alias 84
Razakmiya Qadri
I vs State of Gujarat
1999 CrLJ. 2401. . f Externment.
Sr. Name of the Case Citation. Legal Issue(s)
Involved. Page,
. No. ”
10 lagish 1992 Cr.LJ.’ 981 F .I..R. 8,
vs The State of M.P.
11 Jayantibhai Lalubhai
Patel 1992 Cr.Ll. 2377, F .I.R. 10′
vs The State of
’12 Kuldeep Singh . 1994 Cr.Ll 2502 . FJ.R. and regitration of 11′
vs State FJ.R.
13 Kultej Singh vs 199’2 Cr.LJ.lf73 Arrest 23 ,.
Circle Inspector of
14 Mahadeo 1990 Cr.Ll. 858 Search and seizure 38
vs The State ”
, ..
15. Mohammed Shaft, 1993 Cr.Ll. 505 , Power oiPolice 86
vs The State of M.P. ‘ ,Surveillance
16 Mati Sunar, Mati Lal 1997 Cr.Ll. 72260 Power of Police, 87.. ‘
vs Stae ofU.P. SurVeillance and Right
Life and Personal
17 Munna Lal vs 1992 Cr.Ll 1558 ‘RegistrationofF.I.R. <)
State of Himachal
18 1997’Cr.LJ.3741 55
Satyaharayan ‘.
ExectiYe intevention in
vs Government of
A.P. Investigation
19 Prakash Sitaram
‘ 1994 Cr.LJ.
2502, Extemment 79
vs The State of
20 Ramesh Kumar 1990 Cr.LJ. 255 ,F.I.R.. 7
vs The State (Delhi
Admn) .
21 Ravikcmt PatH 1991 Cr.Ll. 2344 ,Right against torture
and 78:
vs The State of Mahar
astra indignites
22 Sirajkhan 1991 Cr.L.J..251 Extemment 80
vs The State of
Maharastra, ”
Sr. Name of the Case Citation Legal Issue(s)
Involved . Page
No. –
23 SitabenM. Thakore. 1997 Cr.Ll.
4511 Exten1ment 83
vs CommISSIoner of
Alunedabad *
24 . Sharadchandra V
1991 Cr.Ll.
. Charge-sheet 46
Dongre vs
The State of
. .
25 Sharavan Baburao
1997 Cr.Ll. 617 Charge..sheet 47
vs N.B. Hirve;
Inspector of Police

26 Smt. Vandana Vikas 1998 Cr.L.J.
4295 ..Right ofUfe 76..
Waghmare vs
27 Sunil Kumar
Cr.LJ:3201 Power of Police 89
vs Superintendent of Surveillance and Right
. .
Police, BaHia’
Life and Personal
28 Sh. Rambhai alias
1991 CLLl.
Externment 81
vs The State of
State of Orissa vs Sharat Chandra Sahu.
Sub-section (4) of Section 155 creates a legal fiction and provides that
although a case may comprise of several offences of which same are
cognizable and others are not, it would not be open to the police to
investigate the cognizable offences only and omit the non-cognizable
offences. Since the whole case (comprising cognizable and non-cognizable
offences) is to be treated as cognizable, the police had no option but to
investigate the whale of the case and to submit a charge-sheet in respect
of all the offences, cognizable or non-cognizable both, provided it is found
by the police during investigation that the offences appear, prima facie, to
have been committed.
The statutory provision is specific, precise and clear and there is no
ambiguity in the language employed in sub-section (4). It is apparent that if
the facts reported to the police disclose both cognizable and noncognizable
offences, the police would be acting within the scope of its
authority in investigating both the offences as the legal fiction enacted in
sub-section (4) provides that even a non-cognizable case shall, in that
situation, be treated as cognizable.
This Court in Pravin Chandra Mody v. State of A.P. (AIR 1965 SC 1185)
has held that while investigating a cognizable offence and presenting a
charge-sheet far it, the police are net debarred from investigating any noncognizable
offence arising out of the same facts and including them in the
*(1996) 6SCC 435
Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)*
The appellant was married with respondent at Delhi on 09.12.1990. A daughter was
born on 19.12.1991. The appellant was thrown out of matrimonial home in Patiala on
19.01.1992 and at that time she had only wearing apparel. Complaint was lodged by her
at Kotwali P.S., Patiala on the same day making various allegations of torture and
dowry demand against her husband and his family members. Thereafter she came to
live with her parents at Delhi. Threats by her husband continued here also. A complaint
was lodged against her husband in the Women’s Cell, Delhi on 30.04.1992. After
preliminary investigations, the impugned F.I.R. under sections 406 and 498 IPC was
registered at P.S. Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, on 23.01.1993 for the alleged occurence
at Patiala. Thereafter, the respondent filed petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. for
quashing the F.I.R. in Delhi High Court. The High Court arrived. at the conclusion that
the SHO P.S. Paschim Vihar was not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and
investigate, the F.I.R. lodged by the appellant because the alleged dowry items were
entrusted to the respondent at Patiala that the alleged cause of action for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code arose at Patiala.
The findings given by the High Court are, on the face of it, illegal and erroneous
(1) The Se has statutory authority under Section 156CrPC to investigate any cognizable
case for which an FIR is lodged.
(2) At the stage of investigation, there is no question of interference under Section 482
CrPC on the ground that the investigating officer has no territorial jurisdiction.
(3) After investigation is over, if the investigating officer arrives at the conclusion that the
cause at action for lodging the FIR has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then
he is required to submit a report accordingly under Section 170 CrPC and to forward
the. case to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance’ of the offence. (Para 8)
It is true that territorial jurisdiction also is prescribed under sub-section
(1)of Section156 to the extent that the officer can investigate any cognizable case which
*(1999) 8 see 728
a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such police station
would have power to enquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. However,
sub-section (2) of Section 156 makes the position clear by providing that no proceeding
of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the
ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered to investigate.
After investigation is completed, the result of such investigation is required to be
submitted as provided under Section 168, 169 and 170. Section 170 specificity provides
that if, upon an investigation, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that
there is sufficient evidence Of reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of
the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall forward the .accused under custody to a
Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon 8′ police report and to try
the accused. or commit for trial. Further, if the investigation officer arrives at the
conclusion that the crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the
police station, then FIR can be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction over
the area in which the crime is committed. But this would not mean that in a case which
requires investigation the police officer can refuse to record the FIR and/or investigate it.
(emphasis supplied)
A reading of Sections 177 and 178 CrPC would make it clear that Section 177 provides
for “Ordinary” place of enquiry or trial. Section 178, inter alia, provides for place of
enquiry or trial when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was
committed or where the offence was committed partly in one local area and partly in.
another and where it consisted of several acts done in different local areas, it could be
enquired -into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over early of such local areas.
Hence, at the stage of investigation, it cannot be held that the SHO does not have
territorial jurisdiction to investigate the crime.
The legal position is well settled that if an offence is disclosed the court will not normally
interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence
alleged to be completed. If the FIR, prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence,
the court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so wou1d be to trench upon
the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences. It is also settled by
a long course of decisions of the Supreme Court that for the purpose of exercising its
power under Section 482 Cr PC to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would
have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the
documents accompanying the same perse; it has no jurisdiction to examine the
correctness or otherwise of the allegations.
Hence, in the present case, the High Court committed a grave error in accepting the
contention of the respondent that the investigating officer had no jurisdiction to
investigate the matters on the alleged ground that no part of the offence was committed
within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station at Delhi. The appreciation of the
evidence is the function of the courts when seized of the matter. At the stage of
investigation, the material collected by an investigating officer cannot be judicially
scrutinized for arriving at a conclusion that the police station officer of a particular police
station would not have territorial jurisdiction. In any case, it has to be stated that in, view
of Section 178(c) CrPC, when it is uncertain in which of the several local areas an
offence was committed, or where it consists of several acts done, in different local
areas, the said offence can be enquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over
any of such local areas. Therefore, to say at the stage of investigation that the SHO,
Police Station Pachim Vihar, New Delhi was not having territorial jurisdiction, is on the
face of it, illegal and erroneous. That apart, Section 156(2) contains an embargo that no
proceeding of a police officer shall be challenged on the ground that he has no territorial
power to investigate. The High Court has completely overlooked t’1e said embargo
when it entertained the petition of Respondent 2 on the ground of want of territorial
Ramsinh Bavaji Jadeja vs State of Gujarat*
The injured body of victim was brought to hospital by his brother, eye-witness. The
Head Constable on duty at hospital informs PSI on telephone about fight and dead body
of having been brought to hospital. Having received the telephonic message, the Police
Sub Inspector immediately reached the hospital and he first recorded the statement of
brother of deceased. He sent the said statement to the city police station, for registering
a case. Thereafter he held the inquest on the dead body of the deceased for postmortem;
prepared the injury report in respect of the injuries on the person of brother of
deceased and sent him for medical examination and treatment. Then he went to the
scene of occurrence and collected blood-stained crust of cement plaster and examined
witnesses. Under the circumstances mentioned above the statement of brother of
deceased, which was recorded by the. Investigating Officer, afteueaching the hospital
should be treated as the First Informatiol1 Report and not the cryptic telephonic
message of Head Constable.
Every telephonic information about commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of
nature and details of such information cannot be treated as FIR.
*1994 Cr.L.J. 3067
M. Krishna vs State of Karnataka*
The appellant was a Class I officer in the Karnataka Administrative Service. At the
instance of the police, an FIR lodged against him under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act in respect of check period of 1-8-1978 to 24-8-1989
alleging that he had assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The
Investigating Officer submitted a ‘8’ Report before the Special Judge, who after issuing
a public notice inviting objections, accepted the report. On 25-7-1995 another FIR was
field at the instance of the police against the appellant in respect of the period 1-8-1978
to 25-7-1995 under the same provisions and making similar allegations. The appellant
filed a petition under Section 482, CrPC before the Kamataka High Court seeking
quashing of the second FIR on the ground that in view of the result of the earlier
investigation the inclusion of the same check period in the second FIR was not proper.
However, the High Court refused relief and observed that the second FIR contained a
set of fresh allegations in respect of fresh alleged assets during a fresh check period. .
There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or the Prevention of Corruption
Act to sustain the appellant’s contention that the present FIR itself is bad in law. There is
no provision in the CrPC which debars the filing of an FIR and investigation into the
alleged offences merely because for an earlier period, namely, 1-8-1978 to 24-8-1-989,
there was an FIR which was duly investigated into the culminated in a ‘B’ Form Report
which was accepted by a competent court. At the same time, it has to be held that the
conclusion of the High Court that the present proceeding relates to fresh alleged assets
and a fresh check period is not wholly correct. Though the earlier period also could be a
subject-matter of investigation for a variety of reasons like some assets not being taken
into account or some materials brought during investigation not being taken into
account, yet at the same time, the results of the earlier’ investigation cannot be totally
obliterated and ignored by the investigating agency. But that cannot be a ground for
quashing of the FIR itself and for injuncting the investigating authority to investigate into
the offence alleged.
The appellant is right in contending that the assets which were valued in the earlier
investigation proceeding at a particular value cannot be valued higher in the present
proceedings unless any positive ground is there for such revaluation.
*(1999) 3 see 247
Ramesh Kumar VS The State (Delhi Admn)*
Duty constable in the LNJPN Hospital gave information on telephone to P.S. Kotwali on
the basis of which D.D. No. 37-B was recorded at 9.05 p.m. about bringing of Dinesh
Kumar in the casualty of the hospital. The SHO alongwith one SI and copy of D.D. entry
reached the hospital and recorded the statement of Ashok Kumar, who had brought
Dinesh Kumar (deceased) to the hospital and rukka was sent to Police Station through
Sl at 9.45 p.m. and the duty officer at P.S. Kotwali then recorded the F.I.R. at 10.05 p.m.
The duty officer is required to mention the brief facts including the name of the assailant,
names of the witnesses and the weapon used in the daily diary entry about the
registration of the case. In the instant case all these details are conspicuous by their
absence from D.D. entry. There are no valid explanation as to why these details have
not been mentioned. Also, the special report was sent without mentioning the name of
the constable through whom it was despatched, and no efforts have at all been made to
bring on record the testimony of this constable which could have led corroboration to the
testimony of the duty officer and other police officials about the factum of the recording
of the FIR at the time at which it is claimed to have been recorded.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution had, not been able to prove that the FIR
was recorded at the time at which it was claimed to have been recorded.
*1990 Cr.L.J. 255 (Delhi)
Jagdish and others vs The State of Madhya Pradesh*
Where messages are transmitted between Police Officers inter se, the object and
purpose in transmitting the message must be ascertained before any message is
labelled as FIR. It is only If the object was to narrate the circumstances of a crime, with
a view that the receiving Police Officer might proceed to investigate thereon, that the
message would be FIR. But if the message sent was cryptic because the object was
merely to seek instructions from higher Police Officers or because the object was to
send direction for the police force to reach the place of occurrence immediately or to
merely give information to superior Police Officers about the situation of law and order,
the message would not be FIR.
*1992 Cr.L.J. 981 (MP.)
Munna Lal vs State of Himachal Pradesh & others.
The averments made in. the petition are that his eldest son Rakesh Kumar was married
to Smt. Santosh daughter of Sh. Shyam Lal in the month of October 1990. The
petitioner had gone to Uttar Pradesh on Feb. 4, 1991 where he got the information from
his brother-in-law that Rakesh Kumar had died. He rushed back. It was then that he
gathered that the body of Rakesh Kumar was recovered by the police of Kufri on Feb 5,
1991 at about 0910 hrs. He further learnt that Shyam Lal had come to Rakesh Kumar’s
house on Feb 4, 1991 and persuaded to take him to Jatol Dispensary where he was
posted as a Sweeper. Rakesh Kumar’s wife Santosh wanted to accompany them but
Shyam Lal did not agree. She further requested her father that let Rakest, Kumar take
his meals but got an answer that he will be served special diet on that day after which
he will not become hungry. It is further averred in the petition that Shyam Lal was
inimical towards the deceased from the very beginning when marriage took place in
October 1990.
The petitioner has thereafter been knocking at one door or. the other for having his FIR
registered. He approached the police arid thereafter the Deputy Commissioner Shim/a
and then .the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, but all in vain.
The provisions of law about the registration of FIR are very clear. When the petitioner
approached the police on Feb. 9, 1991 and brought the fact, which are given in this
petition to their notice and prayed for the registration of FIR, the police has no opinion
but to register it and thereafter start investigation. It is another thing that after making
investigation as a result where of the police may come to a conclusion that no offence is
made out in which eventuality it has to submit a report to the Court for cancellation of
the FIR. Making an investigation and thereafter forming un opinion about the noncommission
of an offence followed by refusal to register FIR is a procedure not known
to law. It is in fact violative of the matter in which FIR is to be registered and thereafter
inve3tigated. Cumulatively, we are, therefore, of the opinion that a direction should
issue to the state for the registration of the FIR, forthwith and, in the facts and
circumstances of this case, for entrusting the investigation of this case to a police officer
not below the rank of Inspector Police.
*1992 Cr.L.J. 1558 (H.P.)
Jayantibhai Lalubhai Patel vs The State of Gujarat*
Petitioner has filed these application as his application for obtaining certified copy of
complaint was not entertained by the Judicial Magistrate.
Whenever FIR is registered against the accused, a copy of it is forwarded to the Court
under provisions of the Code; thus it becomes a public document. Considering (1) the
provisions of Art 21 of the Constitution of India, (2) first Information Report is a public
document in view of 5.74 of the Evidence Act; (3) Accused gets right as allegations are
made against him under provisions of 5.76 of the Indian Evidence Act and (4) FIR is a
document to which S.162 of the Code does not apply and is of considerable value as on
that basis investigation commenced and that is the first version of the prosecution, as
and when application is made by accused for a certified copy of the complaint, the Court
to which it is forwarded should give certified copy of the complaint, the Court to which it
is forwarded should give certified copy of the FIR, if the application and legal fees
thereof have been tendered for the same in the Court of law. The application is
therefore allowed.
*1992 Cr.L.J. 2377 (Gujrat)

Kuldip Singh vs State*
In the instant case the petitioner was confined in Jail as an undertrial. The information
laid by the petitioner before High Court made an accusation against the Jail Officials
that they gave severe beating to him and thus they committed various cognizable
offences. The petitioner did received injuries. The nature of those injuries and whether
the same were inflicted in the manner alleged by the petitioner or were sustained as
suggested by the Police is a matter which is still to be investigated under the Code of
Criminal Procedure after registration of the case. It is not the case of the authorities that
any investigation or even enquiry was conducted by the Police or any intimation was
sent to the petitioner. A Judicial Officer appointed under the directions of High Court has
found prima facie substance in the allegations of the petitioner. Thus in some
appropriate proceedings it will have to be examined as to how undertrial petitioner
received injuries while in jail custody. Therefore High Court directed that FIR be
registered and the investigation be conducted expeditiously in accordance with law by
the Crime Branch of Police.
On information being laid before the Police about the commission of a cognizable
offence the Police has no option but to register the case and then to proceed with
investigation of the case under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. The Police
can also decide not be investigate in terms contemplated by Section 157 (1) of the
Code. The Police has no right to refuse registration of a case on information being laid
before it about commission of cognizable offence and instead proceed with an enquiry
and refuse registration as a result of the said enquiry. If it is left to be determined by the
Police to decide in which cases of disclosure or commission of cognizable offence it
would first hold preliminary enquiry and then decide to register or not to register the
case; it would also lead to delay in registration of the crime and in the meantime the
material evidence may not be available. The conduct, of enquiry itself may entail a long
period. There may be then challenge to the said enquiry.
The conferment of absolute and uncanalised discretion to the Police to register a
cognizable offence or not, would be violative of equality clause enshrined in our
Constitution. The Code vests power in Judiciary to control the discretion of the Police.
*1994 CrLJ.2502 (Delhi)
The judiciary will remain unaware- in absence of recording of first information Report
has a reasonable doubt about the commission of a cognizable offence, he has power
not to proceed with the investigation but that is subject to check by judiciary. There is
rapid increase -of custody deaths and deaths during- encounters with law enforcing
agency. It is the duty of all organs including judiciary to protect human rights and,
therefore, it is necessary to provide safeguards for early recording of the crime
and control of police by judiciary which would be negated if it is left to the Police to
decide in which case to register the crime on disclosure of commission of cognizable
offence and in which defer it pending enquiry.
A. Nallassivan vs State of Tamil Nadu & others.
In this case 90 women and 28 chicldren of village were detaimed in the office of Forest
Ranger overnigh.
The Court held the detention illegal, offending fundamental rights and directed enquiry
by the C.B.I. It also observed that even when the information is against the police
officials, including the higher officials it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police
station to register the case, in other words he should reduce information in writing read
it over to informant, get their signatures to it and enter the substance thereof in the A
Diary kept in the police station and also give the information so recorded free of cost to
the informants. No Police Standing Order prevents him from doing so. Police Standing
Order 145 only deals with investigation and not with registering the case.
In Nandhini Satpathy V. P.L. Dani AIR 1978SC 1025 (1978) Cri L.J. 968) also, the
Supreme Court has pointed out, regarding the above and proviso to S. 160 of the
Criminal P.C. thus:-
There is public policy, not complimentary to the police personnel, behind this legislative
proscription which keeps juveniles and females from Police Company except at the
former’s safe residence.”
The Court further added that if a police officer acted contrary to the proviso to S. 160 (1)
of the Criminal P.C. such deviation must be visited with prompt punishment since
policemen may not be a law unto themselves expecting others to obey the law.
*1995 Cr.L.J. 2754 (Madras)
Bhagwan Singh vs State of Ponjab*
Joginder Singh, ASI and the other three accused namely, two Head Constables and a
Constable were working in the C.I.A. Staff, Amritsar. On August 6,1978 at about 4.00
p.m. they went to the Hotel of Virsa Singh, PW6 and brought Joginder Singh, deceased
alongwith PWs 4, 5 and 6 to the C.LA Staff Room in Rambagh P.S. and interrogated.
them about smuggled narcotic powder. In the CfJurse of interrogation, ASI and the two
Head Constables caused Injuries to the deceased with their weapons till he became
unconscious. PWs 4, 5 and 6 were kept outside under the guard of two. Constables
when the deceased was being interrogated and heaten in the room. Thereafter, PWs 4,
5 and 6 were also taken inside the room and it is alleged that all the accused inflicted
injuries on them also while interrogating them about the smuggled powder. PWs 4, 5
and 6 were then taken to C.I.A. main building and were detained there till August 9,
1978. Later, they were dropped near a by-pass road. They went to the Hospital and got
themselves medically treated by PWI, Civil Surgeon, Amritsar. Further case of
prosecution is that the unconscious deceased was taken in a car but he expired on the
way and the dead body was thrown into a river and the same could not be recovered
during investigation. PW 8 went to the village of deceased and informed his wife. She
then met the S.S.P. and gave a report to him. As per Punjab Police, Rules, S.P.
Amritsar City took up the investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses. He
visited the scene of occurrence and found’ the walls of interrogation room stained with
blood. After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was filed. The trial Court
convicted accused persons under Section 365 I.P.C. only. The High Court, however,
took a different view. Accepting the evidence of PWs 4 to 10 particularly that of injured
witnesses PWs 4 to 6. The High Court also reached the conclusion that when once it is
proved that the injured witnesses along with the deceased were kidnapped. Confined
and beaten up and later if dead body was not to be traced the only inference that can be
drawn is that the accused also caused the death of the deceased. Against this judgment
these criminal appeals.
It may be a legitimate right of any police officer to interrogate or arrest any suspect on
some credite material but such an arrest must bean accordance with law and the
interrogation does not mean inflicting injuries. It should be in its true sense purposeful,
nanely, to make the investigation effective. Torturing a person and using third degree
methods are of medieval nature and they are barbaric and contrary to law. The police
*(1992) 3 SCC 249
would be accomplishing behind their closed doors precisely what the demands of our
legal order forbid. They must adopt some scientific methods than resorting to physical
torture. If the custodians of law themselves indulge in committing crimes then no
member of the society is safe and secure. If police officers who have to provide security
and protection to the citizens indulge in such methods they are creating a sense of
insecurity in the minds of the citizens. It is more heinous than a game-keeper becoming
a poacher.
Ashak Hussain Allah Detha, alias Siddique and another
Assistant Collector of Customs (P) Bombay and another*
The accused No.1 Hamid Khan was. residing in Room No.301 and the applicants in
Room No.210 of R.K. Hotel, Lamington Road, Bombay, Saidulla, who is in Pakistan,
despatched a large consignment of narcotic drugs on 19th July, 1989. A lorry, driven by
Shersingh, carried the contraband. Accused No.1 Hamid Khan met the Applicants in
Room No.201 and inquired of them whether the consignment had arrived. Meanwhile,
Shersingh met the applicants and told them that he had brought the consignment from
Pakistan. The applicants took Shersingh to the room of the accused No.1. Accused No.
1 took Sher Singh in a car with him. These facts have been recorded in the statements
of the applicants under S.108 of the Customs Act. According to these statements, the
role of the applicants in the transaction ended with the introduction of Shersingh with the
accused No.1 Hamid Khan.
The consignment was unloaded under the supervision of Hamid Khan- Accused No.1,
into two fiat cars driven by the accused Nos. 2 and 3. The officers of the respondent
No.1 intercepted the cars and seized the contraband.
The statement of accused No.1 Hamid-Khan is also recorded under S.108 of the
Customs Act. He claims to have handed over the keys of the cars to Afzal, accused No.
5, and returned to his room. After an hour or so presumably after delivery 0r disposal of
the contraband, Afzal handed over the keys back to him.
The word “arrest” isa term of article. It starts with the arrester taking a person into his
custody by action or words restraining him from moving anywhere beyond the arrester’s
control, and it continues until the person so restrained is either released from custody
or, having been brought before a Magistrate, is remanded in custody by the Magistrate’s
Judicial .Act. In substance, “arrest” is the restraint on a men’s personnel liberty by
*1999 Cr.L.J. 2201 (Bombay)
by the power or colour of lawful authority. In its natural sense also “arrest” means the
restraint on or deprivation of one’s personal liberty. It stands to reason therefore, that
what label the investigating officer affixes to his act of restraint is irrelevant. For the
same reason, the record of the time of arrest is not an index to the actual time of arrest.
The arrest commences with the restraint placed on the liberty of the accused and not
with the time of “arrest” recorded by the Arresting Officers.
The Investigating Officers may lawfully detain a suspect for an offence. But detention in
custody for interrogation is not authorised by law. The Investigating Officers may detain
for an offence only. Any restrain on a person’s liberty except for an offence is illegal.
There is no authority in the Investigating Officers to detain a person for the purpose of
interrogation or helping them in the enquiry.
In cases under the N.D.P.S. Act and Customs Act, the prosecution is, no doubt, entitled
to rely upon the statements of the accused recorded during investigation. But what the
Investigating Officers do, in such cases, is to procure statements, by assault, illegal
detention and fear of continued detention. Then they present these documents as
“statements”. That is not what the law permits them to do. They can certainly rely upon
the statements made by the accused voluntarily. But that is different from saying that
the statements may be procured by any means and. the accused be convicted on such
statements. This manipulation and abuse of the legislative sanction for the use of
statements of the accused requires to be censured in the strongest terms.
Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others*
The petitioner, a young advocate of 28 years, was called by the SSP Ghaziabad, UP.,
Respondent 4, in his office for makil1g enquiries in some case. It was alleged that on
7.1.1994 at about 10 o’clock he personally along with his brothers appeared before the
SSP. At about 12.55 p.m. the brother of the petitioner sent a telegram, to the Chief
Minister of U.P. apprehending the petitioner” false implication in some criminal case and
his death in fake encounter. In the evening, it came to be known that the petitioner was
detained in the illegal custody of respondent 5 Next days the SHO instead of producing
the petitioner before. Magistrate asked the relatives to approach the SSP. On 9.1.1994
in the evening, relatives of the petitioner came to know that the petitioner had been
taken to some undisclosed destination. Under these circumstances the. writ petition
under Article 32 was preferred for release of the petitioner. The Supreme Court on
11.1.1994 ordered notice to the State of U.P. as well as SSP, Ghaziabad. The SSP
along with the petitioner appeared before the Court on and stated that
petitioner was not in detention at all and that his help Was taken for detecting some
cases relating to abduction and the petitioner Was helpful in cooperating with the police.
Therefore, there was no question of detaining him.
The Supreme Court while directing the District Judge, Ghaziabad, to make a detailed
enquiry and submit his report within four weeks observed as under:
The quality of a nation’s civilization can’ be largely measured by the methods it uses in
the enforcement of criminal law. The horizon of human rights is expending. At the same
time, the crime rate is also increasing. The Court has been receiving complaints about
violation of human rights because of indiscriminate arrests; A realistic approach sh9utd
be made in this direction. The law of arrest is one of balancing individual rights, liberties
and privileges, on the one hand, and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities,
on the other, of weighing and balancing the rights, liberties and privileges of the single
individual and those of individuals collectively; of simply deciding what is wanted and
where to put the weight and the emphasis; of deciding which comes first – the criminal
or society, the law violator or the raw abider.
*1994 Cr.L.J. 1981 / (1994) 4SCC 260
Guidelines for Arrest : No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer
to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the
exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart
from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person cause
incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made
in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a
person. It would be a prudent for-a police officer in the interest of protection of the
constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be
made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the
genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the
person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his
liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely
reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental rights to personal liberty and
freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an
offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer
effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous
offences, an arrest must be remanded if a police officer issues notice to person to
attend the Station House and not to leave the station without permission would do.
The right of the arrested person to have someone informed, upon request and to consult
privately with a lawyer was recognized by Section 56(1) of the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act, 1984 in England. These rights are inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the
Constitution and require to be recognised and scrupulously protected. For effective
enforcement of these fundamental rights, the following requirements are issued:
1. An arrested person-being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests to have one friend,
relative or other person who is known to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare told
as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being detained.
2. The police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station
of this right.
3. An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest.
These protections from power must be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22 (1) and
enforced strictly.
It shall be the duty of the Magistrate, before whom the arrested person is produced, to
satisfy himself that these requirements have been.
complied with. .
The above requirements shall be followed in all cases of arrest till legal provisions are
made in this behalf. These requirements shall be in addition to the rights of the arrested
person found in the various police manuals. These requirements are not exhaustive.
The Directors General of Police of all the States in: India shall issue necessary
instructions requiring due observance of these requirements. In addition departmental
instruction shall also be issued that a police officer making an arrest should also record
in the case diary the reasons for making the arrest. (emphasis supplied).
Directorate of Enforcement vs Deepak Mahajan & anr.*
The code gives power of arrest not only to a police officer and a Magistrate but also
under certain circumstances for given situations to private persons. Further, when an
accused person appears before a Magistrate or surrenders voluntarily, the Magistrates
empowered to take that accused person into custody and deal with him according to
law. Needless to emphasize that the arrest of a person is a condition precedent for
taking him into judicial custody thereof. To put it differently, the taking of the person into
judicial custody is followed after the arrest of the person concerned by the Magistrate on
appearance or ‘surrender. In every arrest, there is custody but not vice versa and that
both the words “custody’ and ‘arrest’ are not synonymous terms. Though ‘custody’ may
amount to an arrest in certain circumstances but not under all circumstances. If these
two terms are interpreted as synonymous, it is nothing but an ultra legalist
interpretation, which if under all circumstances accepted and adopted, would lead to a
starling anomaly resulting in serious consequences.
A Magistrate can himself arrest or order any person to arrest any offender if that
offender has committed an offence in his presence and within his local jurisdiction or on
his appearance or surrender or is produced before him and take that person (offender)
into his custody subject to the bail provisions. If a case is registered against an offender
arrested by the Magistrate and a follow up investigation is initiated, or if an investigation
has emanated quo the accusations levelled against the person appearing or
surrendering or being brought before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can in exercise of
the powers conferred on him by Section 167(2) keep the offender or person under
judicial custody in case the Magistrate is not inclined to admit that offender or person to
To invoke S. 167(1), it is not an indispensable pre-requisite condition that in all
circumstances, the arrest should have been effected only by a police officer and none
else and that there must necessarily be records, of entries of a case diary. Therefore, it
necessarily follows that a mere production of an arrestee before a competent Magistrate
by an authorised officer or an officer empowered is arrest (notwithstanding the fact that
*1994 Cr.L.J. 2269
he is not a police officer in its stricto sensu) on as he reasonable belief that the arrestee
“has been guilty of an offence punishable” under the provisions of the special Act is
sufficient for the Magistrate to take that person into the custody on his being satisfied’ of
the three preliminary conditions, namely, (1) the arresting officer legally competent to
make the arrest; (2) that the particulars of the offence or the accusation for which the
person is arrested or other grounds for such arrest exist and are well-founded; and (3)
that the provisions of the special Act in regard to the arrest of the persons and the
production of the arrestee serve the purpose of S.167(1) of the Code.
It cannot be said that either the Officer of Enforcement or the Customs Officers is not
empowered with the power of investigation though not with the power of filing a final
report as in the case of a Police Officer.
The word ‘investigation’ cannot be limited only to police investigation but on the other
hand, the said word is with wider connotation and flexible so as to include the
investigation carried on by any agency whether he be a police officer or a person not
being a police officer under the direction of a Magistrate to make an investigation vested
with the power of investigation.
The expression ‘investigation’ has been defined in S.2(h). It is an inclusive definition. It
being an inclusive definition the ordinary connection of the expression ‘investigation’
cannot be overlooked. An “investigation” means search for material and facts in order to
find out whether or not an offence has been committed. It does not matter whether it
made by the police officer or a customs officer who intends to lodge a complaint. .
The word “investigation’ though is not shown in anyone of the sections of the Customs
Act, certain powers enjoyed by the police officer during the investigation are vested on
the specified officer of customs. However, in the FERA the word ‘investigation’ is used
in various provisions, namely, Section 34, 37, 38 and 40 reading any investigation or
proceeding under this Act….” though Iimited in its scope.
Kultej Singh vs Circle Inspector of Police & others*,
The petitioner Kultej Singh through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,
has sought for issue of a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent
to produce his brother, Sri Hardeep Singh Respondents in their counter-affidavit averred
that Sh. Hardeep Singh was arrested on 28.09.1990 and was produced before the
J.F.M.C. Savanur on 29.09.1990 without any loss of time, however they did not dispute
that Sh. Hardeep Singh was kept in Savanur Police Station from the morning of
27.0’9.1990′ until he was !)roduced before, the Magistrate as Savanur on 29.0’9.1990 at
10′.30 a.m.
From a reading of sub-section (1) of Section 46 of the is clear that a police
officer while making arrest even if he actually touches the body of the person to be
arrested, he can be said to have arrested the person. If a person is confined or kept in
the police station or his movements are restricted within the precincts of a police station,
it would undoubtedly be a case of arrest. In the instant case, the FIR specifically states
that Hardeep Singh was kept in the police station from the morning of 27.9.1990.
Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. provides that no police officer shall detain in custody a person
arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case
is reasonable and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a
Magistrate under Section 167, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time
necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s court. Thus
respondents 1 and 2 were required to produce Hardeep Singh within 24 hrs. from the
time he was kept in the police station as Savanur.
*1992 Cr.L.J. 1173 (Kamataka)
Christian Community Welfare Council of India and another
Government of Maharastra & another*
In a matter relating to custodial violence and arrest of female persons in State the
court issued the following directions to the State Govt.:
(i) The State of Maharashtra is directed to constitute a Committee consisting of its Home
Secretary, law Secretary and Director General of Police within 15 days from today for
going into all the aspects of custodial violence by the police in the State and suggest
comprehensive measures and guidelines to prevent and check custodial violence and
death and also suggest for that purpose suitable amendments in the Police Manual of
the State and also submit comprehensive scheme for police accountability of human
rights abuse;
(ii) The said Committee is directed to submit its report to the State Government within three
months of its constitution;
(iii) The State Government is directed to take effective, steps in implementing the measures
and guidelines suggested by the Committee in preventing and checking the custodial
violence immediately after submission of report by the said Committee;
(iv) The State Government is directed to issue immediately necessary instructions to all
concerned police officials of the State that in every case after arrest and before detainee
is taken to the Magistrate, he should be medically examined and the details of his
medical report should be noted in the Station House Diary of Police Station and should
be forwarded to the Magistrate at the time of production of detainee;
(v) The State Government should also issue instructions to all concerned police officials in
the State that even after the police remand is ordered by the concerned Magistrate for
any period, every third day, the detainee should be medically examined and such
medical reports should be entered in the Station House Diary;
(vi) The State Government is further directed to provide a complaint box duly locked in
every police-lock up and ,the keys of the complaint box should be kept by the Officer-in-
*1995 Cr.L.J. 4223 (Bombay)
Charge of the Police Station. The Officer in charge of the concerned Police Station
should provide paper and pen to the detainee if so demanded for writing complaint and
the Officer in charge of the concerned Police Station should open the complaint is found
in the complaint box, the officer in charge of the Police Station should’ produce such
complaining detainee to the Magistrate immediately along with his complaint and the
concerned Magistrate would pass appropriate orders in the light of the complaint made
for medical examination, treatment, aid or assistance, as the case may warrant;
(vii) The State Government should issue instructions immediately in unequivocal and
unambiguous terms to all concerned that no female person shall be detained or
arrested without the presence of lady constable and in no case, after sun-set and
before sun-rise;
(viii) The State Government should make proper provision for female detainee in separate
lock-ups throughout the State of Maharashtra.
In re: M.P. Dwivedi and others*
The Supreme Court on handcuffing of prisoners issued the following
We declare, direct and lay down as a rule that handcuffs or other fetters shall not
be forced on a prisoner – convicted or undertrial – while lodged in a jail anywhere in the
country or while transporting or in transit from one jail to another or from jail to Court
and back. The police and the jail authorities, on their own shall have no authority to
direct the handcuffing of any inmate of a jail in the country or during transport from one
jail to another or from jail to Court and back.
Where the police or the jail authorities have well-grounded basis for drawing a
strong inference that a particular prisoner is likely to jump jailor break out of the custody
then the said prisoner be produced before the Magistrate concerned and a prayer for
permission to handcuff the prisoner be made before the said Magistrate. Save in rare
cases of concrete proof regarding proneness of the prisoner to violence, his tendency to
escape, he being so dangerous/desperate and the finding that no other practical way of
forbidding escape is available the Magistrate may grant permission to ‘handcuff’ the
In all the cases where a person arrested by police is produced before the
Magistrate and remanded to judicial or non-judicial custody – is given by the Magistrate
the person concerned shall not be handcuffed unless special orders in that respect are
obtained from the Magistrate at the time of the grant of the remand.
When the police arrests a person in execution of a warrant of arrest obtained from
a Magistrate, the person so arrested shall not be handcuffed unless the police has also
obtained Nders from the Magistrate for the handcuffing of the person to be so arrested.
Where a person is arrested by the police without warrant the police officer
concerned may if he is satisfied, on the basis of the guidelines given by us in para
above that it is necessary to handcuff such a person, he may do so till the time he is
taken to the police station and thereafter his production before the Magistrate. Further
use of fetters thereafter can only be under the orders of the Magistrate as already
indicated by us.
*1996 Cr.L.J. 1670
We direct all ranks of police and the prison authorities to meticulously obey the abovementioned
directions. Any violation of any of the directions issued by us by any rank of
police in the country or member of the jail establishment shall be summarily punishable
under the Contempt of Courts Act apart from other penal consequences under law.
(emphasis supplied).
We are also constrained to say that though nearly 15 years have elapsed since this
Court gave its decision in Preme Shankar Shukla (AIR 1980 SC 1535) (supra) no steps
have been taken by the concerned authorities in the, State of Madhya Pradesh to
amend the M.P. Police Regulations so as to bring them in accord with the law laid down
by this Court in that case. Nor has any circular been issued laying down the guidelines
in the matter of handcuffing of prisoners in the light of the decision of this Court in Prem
Shanker Shukla (supra). The Chief secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh is
therefore, directed to ensure that suitable steps are taken to amend the M.P. Police
Regulations in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Premo Shankar Shukla;
(AIR 1980 SC 1535) (supra) and proper guidelines are issued for the guidance of the
police personnel in this regard. The Law Department and the Police Department of the
Government of Madhya Pradesh shall take steps to ensure that the law laid down by
this court in the matter of protection of human rights of citizens as against actions by the
police is brought to the notice of all Superintendent of Police in the Districts soon after
the decision is given, by issuing necessary circulars in that regard and the responsibility
is placed on the Superintendent of Police to ensure compliance with the said circulars
by the subordinate police personnel under his charge.
Citizen for Democracy through Its, President
State of Assam & Others*
In the instant case the detenus who were lodged inside the ward of hospital were
handcuffed and on top of that, tied with a long rope to contain their movement. There
was no material whatsoever in the two affidavits filed on behalf of the State Government
to draw an inference that the detenus were likely to jump jai’! 01″ break out of custody.
The reasons given for keeping the detenus under fetters were that they are hardcore
ULFA activists and earlier during the periof 1991-94 as many as 51 detenus escaped
from custody which included 13 terrorists who escaped and/or were rescued from
different hospitals and seven of them escaped from Guwahati Medical College Hospital.
As a rule it shall be the rule that handcuffs or other fetters shall not be forced on a
prisoner – convicted or under-trial – while transporting or in transit from one jail to
another or from jail to Court and back. The police and the jail authorities, on their own,
shall have no authority without obtaining order from Magistrate, to direct the handcuffing
of, any inmate of a jail in tile country or during transport from one jail to another or from
jail to Court and track. The relevant considerations for putting a prisoner in fetters are
the character, antecedents and propensities of the prisoner. The peculiar and special
characteristics of each individual prisoner have to be taken into consideration. The
nature or length of sentence or the number of convictions or the gruesome character of
the crime the prisoner is alleged to have committed are not by themselves relevant
The Supreme Court further directed as under:
When the police: or the jail authorities have well-grounded basis for drawing a strong
inference that a particular prisoner is likely to jump jailor break out of the custody then
the said prisoner be produced before the Magistrate concerned and a prayer for
permission to handcuff the prisoner be made before the said Magistrate. Save in rare
cases of concrete proof regarding proneness of the prisoner to violence, his tendency to
escape, he being so dangerous/desperate and the finding that no other practicial way of
*1996 Cr.L.J. 3247
forbidding escape is available, the Magistrate may grant permission to handcuff the
In all the cases where a person arrested by police, is produced before the Magistrate
and remand – judicial or non-judicial – is given by the Magistrate the person concerned
shall not be handcuffed unless special orders in that respect are obtained from the
Magistrate at the time of the grant of the remand.
When the police arrests a person in execution of a warrant of arrest obtained from a
Magistrate, the person arrested shall not be handcuffed unless the police has also
obtained orders from the Magistrate for the handcuffing of the person to be so arrested,
When a person is’ arrested by the police without warrant, the police officer concerned
may, if he is satisfied on the basis of the guidelines given above, that it is necessary to
handcuff such a person, he may do so till the time he is taken to the police station and
thereafter his production before the Magistrate. Further, use of fetters thereafter can
only be under the orders of the Magistrate as already indicated.
The Supreme Court further directed that all ranks of police and the prison authorities
shall meticulously obey the above mentioned directions. Any violation of any of the
aforesaid directions by any rank of police in the country or member of the jail
establishment shall be summarily punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act (1971)
apart from other penal consequences under law. (emphasis supplied).
O.K. Basu vs State of W.B.*
The Supreme Court on hand cuffing issued directions for all state agencies in
these words:
It Is therefore, appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all
cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf, as preventive
(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the
arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their
designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of
the arrestee must be recorded in a register.
(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of
arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness,
who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the
locality from where the arrest is made! It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee
and shall contain the time and date of arrest.
(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police
station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or
relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed,
as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular
place, unless the attesti0g witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a
relative of the arrestee.
(4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the
police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town
through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area
concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest. The person
arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or
detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.
(5) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the
person which shall also disclose the name of the next
*(1997) 1 SCC 426
friend of the person, who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars
of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.
(6) The arrestee should, where he so requests, to be also examined at the time of his arrest
and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that
time. The “Inspection Memo” must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer
effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
(7) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48
hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors
appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or Union Territory concerned.
Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all tehsils and districts as
(8) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be
sent to the IIlaqa Magistrate for his record.
(9) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not
throughout the interrogation.
(10) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where
information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be
communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest
and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.
Failure to comply with the requirements herein above mentioned shall apart from
rendering the official concerned liable for departmental action, also render him liable to
be punished for contempt of court and the proceedings for contempt of court may he
instituted in any, High Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter.
The requirements, referred to above flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) of the
Constitution and geed to be strictly followed. These would apply with equal force to the
other governmental agencies also like Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Directorate
of Enforcement, Coastal Guard, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Border Security
Force (BSF), the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), the State Armed Police,
Intelligence Agencies like the Intelligence Bureau, RAW, Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI), CIB, Traffic police, Mounted Police and ITBP.
These requirements are in addition to the constitutional and statutory safeguards
and do not detract from various other directions given by the
courts from time to time in connection with the safeguarding of the rights and dignity of
the arrestee.
The requirements mentioned above shall be forwarded to the Director General of
Police and the Home Secretary of every State/Union Territory and it shall be their
obligation to circulate the same to every police station under their charge and get the
same notified at every police station at a conspicuous place. It would be a step in the
right direction to combat the evil of custodial crime and bring in transparency and
State of Punjab vs Balbir Singh*
Explaining the meaning and procedural aspects of search and seizure particularly
difference between one under Cr.P.C. and another under N.D.P.S. Act the Supreme
Court laid down the law as follows :
Search and seizure are carried out by Police Officer In normal course of investigation
Int9 offence or suspected offence as provided under Cr.P.C. but if there is chance of
recovery of Narcotic Drug. or psychotropic substance, the empowered officer from such
stage onwards should carry out investigation as per provisions of NDPS Act (S.50), SS.
4, 100, 165 of Cr. P.C. not applicable to such search.
If a police officer without any prior information has contemplated under the provisions of
the NDPS Act makes a search or arrest a person in the normal course of investigation
into an offence or suspected offence as provided under the provisions of Cr. P.C. and
when such search is completed at that stage S.50 of the NDPS Act would not be
attracted and the question of complying with the requirements there under would not
arise. If during such search or arrest there is a chance of recovery of any narcotic drug!
or psychotropic substance then the police officer, who is not empowered, should
informed the empowered officer who should thereafter proceed in accordance with the
provisions of the NDPS Act. If he happens to be an empowered officer also then from
that stage onwards, he should carry out the investigation in accordance with the other
provisions of the NDPS Act.
The provisions of the Cr.PC are applicable where an offence under the Indian Penal
Code or under any other law is being inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with. From
the words “otherwise dealt with” in SA, Cr.PC it does \not necessarily means something
which is not included in the investigation, enquiry or trial and the words “other wise”
points to the fact that expression “dealt with” is all comprehensive and that investigation,
enquiry and trial are some of the aspects dealing with the offence. Consequently, the
provisions of the Cr.PC shall be applicable in so far as they are not inconsistent with the
*1994 Cr.LJ. 3702
NDPS Act to all warrants, searches, seizure or arrests made under the Act. But when a
police office carrying on the investigation including search, seizure or arrests
empowered under the provisions of the Cr.PC comes across a person being in
possession of the narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances then two aspects will arise.
If he happens to be one of those empowered officers under the NDPS Act also then he
must follow thereafter the provisions of the NDPS Act and continue the investigations
provided thereunder. If on the other hand he is not empowered then the obvious thing
should do is that he must information the empowered 9fficer under the NDPS Act who
should there after proceed from that stage in accordance with the provisions of the
NDPS Act. But at this stage the question of restoring to S.50 and informing the accused
person that if he so wants, he would be taken to a gazetted officer and taking! to
gazetted officer thus would not arise because by then search would.
have been over. As laid down in S.50 the steps contemplated there under namely
infdrming and taking him to the gazetted officer should be done before the search.
When the search is already over in the usual course of investigation under the
provisions of Cr.P.C. then the question of complying with S.50 would not arise.
The procedure fort search and seizure under Sections 41 (1) (2) and 42 (1), are
mandatory in nature. Under Section 41 (1) only an empowered Magistrate can issue
warrant for the arrest or for the search in respect of offe0ces punishable under Chapter
IV of the Act etc., when he has reason to believe that such offences have been
committed or such substance’s are kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or
place. When such warrant for arrest or for search is issued by a Magistrate who is not
empowered, then search or arrest if carried out would be illegal likewise, only
empowered officer. or duly authorise officer an enumerated in Ss.41 (2) & 42 (1) can act
under the provisions of the NDPS Act. If such arrest or search is made under the
provision of the NDPS Act by anyone other than such officer, the would be illegal. Under
Ss. 41 (2) only the empowered officer can give the authorisation to his subordinate.
officer to carry out the arrest of a person or search as mentioned therein. If there is a
contravention that would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the conviction. Under
Section 42(1) the empowered officer if has a prior information given by any person, that
should necessarily be taken down in writing. But if he has reason to believe from
personal knowledge that offences under Chapter IV have been committed or materials
which may furnish evidence of commission of such offences are concealed in any
building etc. he may carry out the arrest or search without a warrant between sunrise
and sunset
and this provision does not mandate that he should record his reasons of belief. But
under the proviso to S.42 (1) if such officer has to carry out such search between sunset
and sunrise, he must record the grounds of his belief. To this extent these provisions
are mandatory and contravention of the same would affect the prosecution case and
vitiate the trial.
The object of NDPS Act is to make stringent provisions for control and regulate an
operation relating to those drugs and substances. At the same time, to avoid harm to
the innocent person and to avoid abuse of the provisions by the officers, certain
safeguards are provided which in the context have to be observed strictly. Therefore,
these provisions make it obligatory that such of those officers mentioned therein, on
receiving an information should reduce the same to writing and also record the reasons
for the belief while carrying out arrests or search as provided un;der the proviso to
S.42(1). To that extent they are mandatory. Consequently the failure to comply with
these requirements affects the prosecution case and therefore vitiates the trial.
Empowered officer or an authorised officer under 8.41 (2) carrying out search would be
doing so under Ss. 100 and 165, Cr.P.C. However if there is no strict compliance with
provisions of Cr.PC, search would not be illegal. Under Section 42(2) such empowered
officer who takes down any information in writing or records the grounds under proviso
to S.42(1) should forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. If there
is total non-compliance of this provision the same affects the prosecution case. To that
extent it is mandatory. But if there is delay whether it was undue or whether the same
has been explained or not, will be a question of fact in each case. If a police officer,
even if he happens to be an “empowered” officer while effecting an arrest or search
during normal investigation, into offences purely under the provisions of Cr.PC fails to
strictly comply with provisions of S.s100 and 165, Cr. PC including the requirement to
accord reasons, such failure would only amount to an irregularity. If an empowered
officer or an authorised officer under 8.41 (2) of the Act carries out a search, he would
be doing so under the provisions of Cr.PC namely Ss.100 and 165, Cr.PC and if there is
no strict compliance with the provisions of Cr.PC then ‘Juch search would not per se be
illegal and would not vitiate the trial. The effect of such failure has to be borne in mind
by the courts while appreciating the evidence in the facts and circumstances of each
When the police, while acting under the provisions of Cr.PC as empowered therein and
while exercising surveillance or investigating into other offences, had to carry out the
arrests or searches they would be acting under the pr0visions of Cr. PC. At this stage if
there is any non-compliance of the provisions of Ss. 100 or 165, Cr. PC that by itself
cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case outright. The effect of such noncompliance
will have a bearing on the appreciation of evidence of the official witness
and other material depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In
carrying out such searches if they come across any substance covered by the NDPS
Act the question of complying with the provisions of the said Act including S50 at that
stage would not arise. When the contraband seized during such arrests or searches
attracts the provisions of NDPS Act then from the stage the remaining relevant
provisions of NDPS Act would be attracted and the further steps have to be taken in
accordance with the provisions of the said Act.
Neither S.41 (2) nor S.42 (1) mandates such empower officer to record the grounds of
his [belief. It is only proviso to S.42(1) read with S.42(2) which makes it obligatory to
record grounds for his belief. To that extent, the provisions are mandatory. A fortiori, the
empowered officer though is expected to record reasons of belief as required under
S.165, failure to do so cannot vitiate the trial particularly when S.41 or 42 does not
mandate’ to record reasons while making a search. Section 165 in the context has to be
read along with Section 41 (2) and 42(1) where under he is !not required to record his
On prior information empowered officer acting under S.41 (2) or S.42 – Should comply
with provisions of S.50 are mandatory. On prior information, the empowered officer or
authorise officer while acting under S.41 (2) or 42 should comply with the provisions of
S.50 before the search of the person is made and such person should be informed that
if he so requires he shall be produced before a gazetted officer or Magistrate as
provided thereunder. It is obligatory on’ the part of such officer to inform the person to
be searched. Failure to inform the person to be searched and if such person so requires
failure to take him to the gazetted officer or tile Magistrate, would amount to noncompliance
to S.50 which is mandatory and thus it would affect the prosecution case
and vitiate the trial. After being so informed whether such person opted for such a
course or not would be a question of fact. It is an imperative requirement on the part of
the officer intending to search to inform the person to be searched of his right that if he
so chooses, he will be searched in _he presence of a gazetted 0fficer or a magistrate.
Thus the provision of S.50 are mandatory.
Steps under Ss.52 and 57 to be taken after arrest or seizure are by themselves not
mandatory. The provisions of Ss. 52 and 57 which deal with the steps to be taken by the
officer after making arrest or seizure under Ss.41 to 44 are by themselves not
mandatory. If there is non-compliance or if there are lapses like delay etc. then the
same has to be examined to see whether any prejudice has been caused to the
accused and such failure will have a bearing on the appreciation of evidence regarding
arrest or seizure as well as on merits of the case.
Sections 52 and 57 come into operation after the arrest and seizure under the Act.
Somewhat similar provisions also are there in the Cr.PC. If there is any violation of
these provisions, then the court has to examine the effect of the same. In that context
while determining whether the provisions of the act to be followed after the arrest or
search are directory or mandatory, it will have to be kept in mind that the provisions of a
statute creating public duties are generally speaking directory. The provisions of these
two sections certain procedural instructions for strict compliance by the officers. But if
there is no strict compliance of any of these instructions that by itself cannot render the
acts done by these officers n II and void and at the most it may affect the probative
value of the evidence regarding arrest or search and in some cases it may invalidate
such arrest or search. But such violation by itself does not invalidate the trail or the
conviction if otherwise there is sufficient material. Therefore, it has to be shown that
such non- compliance has caused prejudice and resulted in failure of justice. The
officers however, cannot totally ignore these provisions and if there is no proper
explanation for non -compliance or where the officer totally ignore the provisions then
that will definitely have an adverse affect on the prosecution case and the courts have
to appreciate the evidence and the merits of the case bearing these aspects in view.
However a mere non-compliance or failure to strictly comply by itself will not vitiate the
Mahadeo vs The State*
Accused found all of a sudden with one countrymade pistol and two live catridges
without any licence and public witnesses were not available at that time. Fard was
prepared by the S.I.
The search of accused was taken under S.51. It does not require that when search of
arrested person is made, signature of the person searched shall be taken on the memo
of recovery and its copy should be given to him, It I simply requires that when any article
is seized from the ‘arrested person a receipt showing the articles taken in possession by
the police officers shall be given to such person, In the present case there is no
endorsement on the recovery memo that any such receipt was given to the revisionist.
Police Regn. 154 of U.P. Police Regulations lays down that if search of an arrested
person under S.51 is made, it should be done in the presence of two witnesses
unconnected with the police whenever such witnesses are available. In the present
case it is undisputed that two public witnesses were not present at the time of the
search and the seizure. However, there is an explanation that the accused was found all
of a sudden and so the public witnesses could not be taken at the time of the search of
the arrested person. :In view of this explanation it can be said that public witnesses
were not available and as such Regn. 154 is not attracted. S.100 however, provides that
the recovery memo should be signed by the witnesses present at the time of the search
and a copy of the recovery memo should be delivered to the person/searched. S.100,
Cr.PC does not apply to the present case because its provisions are applicable when
search warrant is obtained by the Police Officer and in pursuance of the same search is
taken. Moreover, irregularities if any did not vitiate search or trial.
*1990 Cr.L.J. 858 (Ailad- Lucknow Bench)
1.7 : REMAND
C.B.I. vs Anupam J. Kulkarni*
In this case the Supreme Court has discussed the various aspects of period of
remand and otrer associated events.
Section 167 is supplementary to S.57. The investigation should be completed in the first
instance within 24 hours; if not the arrested person should be brought by the police
before a Magistrate as provided under Section 167. While doing so, the police should
also transmit a copy of the entries in the diary relating to the case, which is meant to
afford to the Magistrate the necessary information upon which he can take the decision
whether the accused should be detained in the custody further or not. Even at this stage
the Magistrate can release him on bail if an application is made and if he is satisfied that
there are no grounds to remand him to custody but if he is satisfied that further remand
is necessary then he should act as provided under Section 167.
The Judicial Magistrate can in the first instance authorise the detention of the accused
in either police or judicial custody from time to time but the total period of detention
cannot exceed fifteen days in the whole. Within this period of fifteen days there can be
more than one order changing the nature of such custody either from police to judicial or
If the arrested accused is produced before Executive Magistrate having judicial powers
where Judicial Magistrate is not available the Executive Magistrate is empowered to
authorise the detection in such custody either police or judicial only for a week, in the
same manner namely by one or more orders but after one week he should transmit him
to the nearest Judicial Magistrate along with the records. When the arrested accused is
so transmitted the Judicial Magistrate, for the remaining period, that is to say excluding
one week or the number of days of detention ordered by the Executive Magistrate, the
Judicial Magistrate, may authorise further detention within that period of first fifteen days
to such custody either police or judicial.
Likewise the remand under Section 309 CrPC can be only to judicial custody in terms
mentioned therein. Section 309 comes into operation after taking cognizance and not
*(1992) 3SCC 141
during the period of investigation and the remand under this provision can only be to
judicial custody and there cannot be any controversy about the same.
After the expiry of the first period of fifteen days the further remand during the period of
investigation can only be in judicial custody. Police custody found necessary can be
ordered only during the first period of fifteen days. If a further interrogation is necessary
after the expiry of the period of first fifteen days there is no bar for interrogating the
accused who is in judicial custody during the periods of 90 days or 60 days. The
detention in police custody is generally disfavored by law. The whole scheme underlying
S. 167 is intended to limit the period of police custody in order to protect the accused
from the methods which may be adopted by some overzealous and unscrupulous police
There cannot be any detention in the police custody after the expiry of first fifteen days
even in a case where some more offences either serious or otherwise committed by him
in the same transaction come to light at a later stage. But this bar does not apply if the
same arrested accused is involved in a different case arising out of a different
transaction. Even if he is in judicial custody in connection with the investigation of the
earlier case he can formally be arrested regarding his involvement in the different case
and associate him with the investigation of that other case and the Magistrate can act
as provided under Section 167(2) and the proviso and can remand him to such custody
as mentioned therein during the first period of fifteen days and thereafter in accordance
with the proviso as discussed above.
If the investigation is not completed within the period of ninety days or sixty days as
provided under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 then the accused has to be
released on bail as provided under the proviso to Section 167(2).
The period of ninety days or sixty days has to be computed from the date of detention
as per the orders of the Magistrate and nor from the date of arrest by the police.
Consequently the first period of fifteen days mentioned in Section 167(2) has to be
computed from the date of such detention and after the expiry of the period of first
fifteen days it should be only judicial custody.
State of Andhra Pradesh vs P.V. Pavitharan*
A case under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
was retired against the respondent, an officer in IPS in March 1984. The respondent
was placed under suspension pending inquiry but on the’ basis of inquiry the’ State
Government passed an order in September 1984 for stopping further action arid for his
reinstatement in service. However, by a subsequent order in July 1985, the government
cancelled its earlier order and directed the respondent to show cause as to why the
penalty of compulsory retirement should not be imposed on him. The respondent filed a
writ petition before the High Court challenging the order. The writ petition was
transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held that the impugned order
was illegal and beyond the powers of the government. The government being illegal and
beyond the powers of the government. The government being aggrieved filed an SLP
before the Supreme Court, which on November 16, 1988 dismissed the same in view of
the fact that the respondent had already retired from service on attaining age of
superannuation. Meanwhile the Anti-Corruption Bureau after completing its investigation
in the criminal case had submitted its report in April 1987 to its Director-General who in
turn had sent the same to tl1e government on September 17, 1988. The respondent
filed the criminal petition for quashing further proceedings pursuant to the registration of
the first information report, inter aila, contending that there had been lull in the
investigation for fairly long spell causing inordinate delay and that the prosecution had
not filed its report contemplated under Section 173 Cr.PC till he filed the petition for
quashing the proceedings in November 1987 though the case waft registered in March
1984. The High Court on July 29. 1988 quashed the FIR and the subsequent
proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay in the investigation. However, the
appellant-government accorded sanction for prosecution of the respondent only on
September 16, 1988 i.e. after nearly 50 days of the quashing of the FIR. Dismissing the
appeal of the State on the peculiar facts the Supreme Court
In view of the facts and circumstances and the various events following the suspension
of the respondent culminating in his being allowed to retire on attaining the age of
superannuation, it is not a fit case for interference.
*(1990) 2SCC340
However, no general and wide proposition of law can be formulated that wherever there
is any inordinate delay on the part of the investigating ‘agency in completing the
investigation such delay is a ground to quash the FIR. It is not possible to formulate
inflexible guidelines or rigid principles uniform application for ,speedy investigation or to
stipulate any arbitrary period of limitation within which investigation in a criminal case
should be completed. The determination of the question whether the accused has been
deprived of a fair trial on account of delayed or protracted investigation would also
depend on various factors ‘including whether such delay was unreasonably long or
caused deliberately or intentionally to hamper the defence of the accused, or Whether
such delay was inevitable in the nature of things or whether it was due to the dilatory
tactics adopted by the accused. The court, in addition, has to consider whether such
delay on the part of the investigating agency has caused grave prejudice or
disadvantage to the accused; It is imperative that if investigation of a criminal
proceeding staggers on with tardy pace due to the indolence or inefficiency of the
investigating agency causing unreasonable and substantial delay resulting in grave
prejudice or disadvantage to the accused, the court as the protector of the right and
personal liberty of the citizen will step in aild resort to the drastic remedy of quashing
further proceedings in such investigation. While so there are offences of grave
magnitude such as diabolical’ crimes of conspiracy or clandestine crimes committed by
members of the underworld with their tentacles spread over various parts of the country
or even abroad. The very nature of such offences would necessarily involve
considerable time for unearthing the crimes book.
The Investigating Officer is only required to collect material to find out whether the
offence alleged appears to have been committed. In the course of the investigation, he
may examine the accused. He may seek his clarification and if necessary he may cross
check with him about his known sources of income and assets possessed by him.
Indeed, fair investigation requires that the accused should not be kept in darkness. He
should be taken into confidence if he is willing to cooperate. But to state that after
collection of all material the Investigating Office: must give an opportunity to the
accused and call upon him to account for the excess of the assets over the known
sources of income and then decide whether the accounting is satisfactory or not, would
be elevating the Investigating Officer to the position of an enquiry officer or a judge. The
Investigating Officer is not holding an enquiry against the conduct of the public servant
or determining the disputed issues regarding the, disproportionality between the assets
and the income of the accused. He just collects material from all sides and prepares a
report, which he files in the court as charge-sheet.
The charge-sheet is nothing but a final report of police officer under Section 173(2) of
the Cr.PC. The statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) would be
complied with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. This
report is intimation to the magistrate that upon investigation into a cognizable offence
the Investigating Office:- has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to
inquire, into the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court. In fact,
the report under Section 173(2) purports to be an opinion of the Investigating Officer
that as far as he is concerned he has been able to procure sufficient material for the trial
of the accused by the Court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the
documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5). ‘Nothing more
need be stated in the report of the Investing Officer. It is also not necessary that all the
details of the offence must be stated. The details of the offence are required to be
proved to bring home the guilt to the accused at a later stage i.e. in the course of the
trial of the case by adducing acceptable evidence.
*(1991) 3 SCC655
State of West Bengal vs Falguni Dutta and Another*
In this case the Supreme Court has discussed the effect of delay in filing chargesheet
where the matters are triable by Special Courts.
In the case of offence punishable under Section 7(1) (a)(ii) of the Essential
Commodities Act which is tried by a Special Court constituted under Section 12-A, the
provision of sub-section (5) of Section 167 of the Code gets attracted if the investigation
has not been completed within the period allowed by that sub-section. After the
constitution of Special Courts all offences under the Act have to be tried by that court in
a summary way by applying the provisions of Section 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the
Code. The proviso to clause (f) of Section 12M (1) of Essential commodities Act places
a fetter on the power of the court in the matter of passing a sentence on conviction,
namely, that notwithstanding the fact that Section 7( 1)( a)(ii) prescribes a punishment
extending up to seven years and fine, Special Court shall not pass a sentence of
imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. It is this proviso which attracts the
definition of a summons-case, the trial whereof must be undertaken in accordance with
the procedure outlined in Chapter XX of the Code. The power conferred by sub-section
(5) of Section 167 can be invoked by the Special Court by virtue of clause (c) of Section
12-AA(1) to exercise the same powers which a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try a
case may exercise under Section 167 of the Code in relation to an accused person who
has been forwarded to him under that provision. Therefore, the Special Court can stop
further investigation into the offence if the Investigation is not concluded within a period
of six months from the day of arrest of the accused person unless for special reasons
and in the interest of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond that period is
necessary. In the present case the officer making the investigation had not sought the
permission of the Special Court to continue. with the investigation even after the expiry
of six months. The object of this sub-section clearly is to ensure prompt investigation
into an offence triable as summons-case to avoid hardship and harassment to the
accused person.
Police Report: The police report under Section 173(2) has to be submitted as soon as
the investigation is completed. If the investigation has been stopped on the expiry of six
*(1993) 3SCC 288
months or the extended period. if any. by the Magistrate in exercise of power conferred
by sub-section (5) of Section 167 of the Code, the investigation comes to an end and,
therefore, on the completion of the investigation Section 173(2) enjoins upon the officer
in charge of the police station to forward a report in the prescribed form. There is
nothing in sub-section (5) of Section 167 to suggest that if the investigation has not
been completed within the period allowed by that sub section, the officer in charge of
the police station will be absolved from the responsibility of filing the police report under
Section 173(2) of the Code on the stoppage of the investigation. Therefore, the Special
Court was competent to entertain the police report restricted to six months investigation
and take cognizance on the basis thereof. In this case the High Court erred in quashing
the order of the Special Court taking cognizance of the offence on the police report, i.e.
charge-sheet submitted under Section 173 (2) of the Code.
Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre and others
The State of Maharashtra*’
A plain reading of S.173, Cr. P.C. shows that every investigation must be completed
without unnecessary delay and as soon as it is completed, the Officer-in Charge of the
Police Station shall forward a report to the Magistrate in the form prescribed. Therefore,
there is no question of sending up to a “police report” within the meaning of. S.173 subsec.
(2) until the investigation is completed. Any report, sent before the investigation is
completed will not be a police report within the meaning of sub-sec. (2) of S.173 read
with S.2(r) and there is no question of the Magistrate taking, cognizance of the offence,
within the meaning of S.190 (1) (b) on the basis of an incomplete charge sheet. The
incomplete charge-sheet cannot be treated, as a “police report” at all as contemplated
under S.173(2) to entitle the Magistrate to take cognizance of the’ offences. A police
report as defined in S. 2(r) can only be filed” as soon as the investigation’ is completed
If it is not complete, no such report can be filed. When no report is forwarded as
required by the Code the Magistrate cannot take cognizance. Thus, unless all these
steps are crossed, sub-sec. (8) cannot be pressed in aid for collecting further evidence
which really can be called in aid if further evidence is discovered after the filing of the
charge-sheet or the, police report on the completion of the investigation. Unless’
cognizance has been taken, sub-sec.(8), cannot be set in motion., The, Magistrate
cannot take cognizance on the admittedly “incomplete charge-sheet” forwarded by the
police. In case the Magistrate is allowed, to take cognizance on basis of incomplete
charge sheet then’ the provisions of S.167(2) or to say S.468 of the Cr. P.C., can always
be circumvented’ by the prosecution and the apparent legislative intents under those
provisions would not only be not effectuated but undoubtedly” stultified.
“1991 Cr.LJ. 3329 (Bombay)
Sharavan Baburao Dinkar
N.B.Hirve, Addionallnspector of Police and others.
Section 96 merely deals with the obligation of an officer in charge at a police station to
forward his report under S. 173 of the Code at Criminal Procedure to. the Commissioner
or such other officer as the Commissioner may direct in that behalf. The said section
nowhere provides that the Commissioner has the authority to issue summaries as has
been done in the present case. Issuance at summaries is a function to be performed by
Magistrates. The same has advisedly not been left far being performed by the
Commissioner. This being a judicial function has to be performed by the Magistrate and
Magistrate alone. Commissioner has no authority trample aver these judicial functions
of the Magistrate.
The function of the police, being an executive limb, is distinct from the role assigned to
the judiciary. One is not permitted to trample upon the province exclusively reserved for
the other. Once a report under S.173(2) is submitted by the police to a Magistrate, a
Magistrate has .the jurisdiction to take cognizance. A Magistrate is not entitled in the
event of a police report, being a negative report, to direct the police to file a charge
sheet: All that he is authorized to. do is to direct a further investigation in the case.
Similarly once a report under S.173 is submitted, taking of cognizance is the exclusive
province of the Magistrate. The police has no role to play in this behalf. As far as S.96 a
Bombay Police Act is concerned, the same does not override any of the provisions
contained in the code of Criminal Procedure including these found in Ss 173 and 190 of
the Code. As far as grant of summaries is concerned, there is no provision to be found
in regard to the same either under the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the Bombay
Police Act. The only provision in that behalf is found in the Criminal Manual issued by
the High Court in exercise of its powers canferred by Art. 227(2) of the Constitution of
*1997 Cr.L.J. 617 (Bombay)
It is, thus, clear that grant of summaries is a judicial function Ieft to the exclusive
province of the Magistrate and a Police Officer, or for that matter a Commissioner of
Police or an officer duly-appointed by him has no role to play (emphasis supplied).
The Bombay Police Manual classifies – the orders which may be requested by the
Investigating Officer when he is of the- opinion’ that no judicial proceeding need be
initiated as Summaries “A” and “B” and “C”. A request for “a” Summary IS to be made
when the police officer investigating the case is of the view that the officer is true but
undetected and where there is no clue whatever about the culprits or property or where
the accused is known but there is no evidence to justify his being sent up for trail.
Request for “B” Summary is to be made when the complaint is malicious false and for
“C” Summary when the complaint neither true nor false, that is, due to mistake of facts
of being of a civil nature.
State of Haryana and OtIJers vs Bhajan Lal and Others.
The power of police to investigate u/s 156, 157 and 159 is not restricted. However,
incases of illegal and improper exercise of investigatory powers in violation of statutory
provisions – Courts would interfere.
The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the, police officers
whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the
cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions
falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the courts are not justified in obliterating the
track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bound_.
A noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate
is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorized to
interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to
be conducted. But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits. And
improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory
provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen,
then the court on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any
grievance; has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate
orders as’ may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons
since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution. No one can demand absolute
immunity even if he is wrong and claim unquestionable right and. unlimited powers
exercisable up to unfathomable cosmos; any recognition of such power will tantamount
to recognition of ‘Divine Power’ which no authority on earth can enjoy.
Magistrate can intervene only when police officer decides not to investigate.
After registration of a case under Section 154(1), the police have a statutory right under
Section 156(1) to investigate any cognizable case without requiring sanction of a
Magistrate. The core of Section 156, 157
*(1992) Supp. (1)SCC 335
and 159 of the Code is that if a police officer has reason to suspect the commission of a
cognizable offence, he must either proceed with the investigation or cause an
investigation to be proceeded with by his subordinate; that in a case where the police
officer sees no sufficient ground for investigation, he can dispense with the investigation
altogether; that the field of investigation of any cognizable offence is exclusively within
the domain of the investigating agencies over which the courts cannot have control and
have no power to stifle or impinge upon the proceedings in the investigation so long as
the investigation proceeds in compliance with the provisions, relating to investigation
and that is only in a case wherein a police officer’ decides not to investigate an offence,
the concerned Magistrate can intervene and either direct an investigation or in the
alternative, if he thinks fit, he himself can at once proceed or depute any Magistrate
sub-ordinate to him to proceed to hold a preliminary inquiry into or otherwise to dispose
of the case in the manner provided in the Code.
Registration of F.I.R.
If any information disclosing a cognizable, offence is laid before an officer in charge of a
police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police
officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form,
that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information. ‘Reasonableness’ or
‘credibility’ of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case.
The police officer should not refuse to record an information relating to the commission
of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon ‘on the ground that he is not
satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. ‘In’ Section 154(1) the
legislature in its collective wisdom has care fully and cautiously used the expression
“information’; without qualifying the same as in Section 41(1) (a) or (9) of the Code
wherein the expressions. ” reasonable complain” and “credible information” are used.
Commencement of Investigation
The commencement of investigation by a police officer is subject to two conditions,
firstly, the police officer should have reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable
offence as required by Section 157(1) and secondly, the police officer should
subjectively satisfy himself as to whether there, is sufficient ground for entering on an
Investigation even before he starts an investigation into the, facts and circumstances of
the case, as contemplated under clause(b) of the provision to, Section (1) of the code.
The expression “reason to suspect” as occurring in Section 157(-1) is not qualified as in
Section 41 (a) and (9) of the Code, wherein the expression, “reasonable suspicion” is
used. As the words ‘reason to suspect’ are apparently clear, plain and unambiguous;
considering the context and the objection of the procedural provision in question, only
the plain meaning rule is to be adopted so as to avoid any hardship or absurdity
resulting, there from and the words are used and also to be understood only’ in,
common parlance.
So read the expression “reason to suspect the commission of an offence” would mean
the sagacity of rationally inferring the commission of a cognizable offence based on the
specific articulate facts mentioned in the first information report as well in the
annexures, if any, enclosed and any attending circumstances which may not amount to
proof: Therefore, the existence of the reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable
offence has to be prima facie, disclosed by the allegations made in the first information
laid before the police officer under-Section 154(1). The meaning of the expression II
reason to suspect” has to be governed and dictated by the facts and, circumstances of
each case and at that stage the question of adequate proof of facts alleged in the first
information report does not arise.
Madhu Bala
Suresh Kumar & Others.
Whenever a Magistrate directs an investigation on a ‘complaint’ the police has to
register a cognizable case on that complaint treating the same as the FIR and comply
with the requirements, of the Police Rules. Therefore, the direction of a Magistrate
asking the police to ‘register a case’ makes an order of investigation under Section
156(3) cannot be said to be legally unsustainable. Indeed, even if a Magistrate does not
pass a direction to register a: case, still in view of the provisions of Section 156(1) of the
Code which empowers the Police to investigate into a cognizable ‘case’ and the Rules
framed under the Police Act. 1861 it the Police is duty bound, to formally register a case
and then investigate into the same. The provisions of the Code, therefore, does not in
t3ny way stand in the way of Magistrate to direct the police to register a case at the
police station and then investigate ,into the same. When an order for investigation under
Section 156(3) of the Code is to be made the proper direction to the Police would be, to
register a case at the police station treating the complaint as the First Information
Report and investigate into the same.
When a written complaint disclosing a cognizable offence is made before a Magistrate,
he may take cognizance upon the same under Section 190(1) (a) of the Code and
proceed with the same in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XV. The other
option available to the Magistrate in such a case is to send the complaint to the
appropriate Police Station under’ Section 156(3) for investigation. Once such a direction
is given under sub section (3) of Section 156 the police is required to investigate into
that complaint under sub-section (1) thereof and on completion of investigation to
submit a ‘police report’ in accordance with Section 1’73(2) on which a Magistrate may’
take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) but not under 190(1)(a). Since a complaint
filed before a Magistrate cannot be a ‘police report’ in view of the definition of ‘complaint’
referred to earlier and’ since, the investigation of a ‘cognizable case’ by the police under
*1997 Cr.L.J. 3757
Section 156(1) has to culminate in a ‘police report’ the ‘complaint’ -as soon as an order
under Section 156(3) is passed thereon-transforms itself to a report given in writing
within the meaning of Section 154 of the Code, which is known as the First Information
Report (FIR). As under, Section 156(1), the police can only inv’3stigate’a cognizable
‘case’ it has’ to formally register a case on that report .
Nirmal Kanti Roy vs State of W.B *
The appellant was involved as accused in an offence under Section 409, IPC. During
investigation of the case he applied for and got, a pre-arrest bail order and surrendered
himseh before the Magistrate on 18-3-1993. As the investigation was not completed
within two years there from he moved the said Magistrate on 22-9-1995 for discharging
him under Section 167(5), CrPC. The Magistrate dismissed the application’ pointing out
that the case’ being triable only by a Special judge under the West Bengal Criminal Law
Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 the order sought by the appellant could be
passed only’ by the Special Judge. A Single judge, of the High Court while holding the
Magistrate to be competent to pass an order under Section 167(5) in the instant case,
granted further time to the 10, on an application filed by him, on being satisfied that the
10 could not complete the investigation. due to sickness. The question was whether
time could, have been extended without the 10. moving for such extension before the
expiry of, the statutory period.
On the facts of the instant case the two years’ period’ mentioned in ‘Section 167(5)(iii)
must be reckoned from 18-3-1993 on which date the appellant surrendered himself in
The order stopped further investigation into the offence and the consequential order of
discharge are not intended to be automatic sequel to the failure to Complete
investigation within the period fixed in the sub-section as is evident from the succeeding
words, in Section 167(5), Even in a case where the order stopping investigation and the
consequent discharge of accused has been made that is not the last word’ on it
because Section 167(6) opens another avenue for moving the Session judge,’
Therefore, the time schedule shown in. Section. 167(5) of the Code is not to be treated
with rigidity and it is not mandatory that on the expiry of the period indicated therein the
Magistrate, should necessarily pass the order of discharge of the accused. Before
ordering stoppage of investigation the Magistrate shall consider whether on the facts of
that case, further investigation would be necessary to foster interest of criminal justice.
The Magistrate at that stage must look into the record of investigation to ascertain the
progress of investigation thus far registered. If substantial part of investigation was by
then over” the Magistrate should seriously ponder over the question whether it would be
conducive,to the interest of justice to stop further investigation and discharge the
*(1998) 4SCC 590
Mutharaju Satyanarayan
Government of A.P. and others.
The brief facts of the case are that one Arigadi Prabhakara Rao was a wanted criminal
against whom three non-boilable warrants were pending execution. On 26-4-1985 the
petitioner and some others having found him at a Beedi shop chased and caught hold of
him. When he resisted and tried to escape, the Head Constable and Home Guard overpowered
him and during that scuffle he received some injuries. Thereafter, he was
taken to police station and was confined in lock-up at 9 p.m., on 26-4-1985. On 27-4-
1985 he was found dead in police station. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued
G.O.Ms No. 441. General Administration (General B.) dated 24-9-1985, appointing
Sri.M. Sreeramulu, retired District Judge as single Member Commission of inquiry under
the. Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 to inquire into the death .of said Prabhakar Rao
with reference to following terms:
(1) To find out the circumstances leading to the death of Sri Angadi Prabhakar Rao
in police custody at Chirala town police station on 27-4-1985.
(2) To identify the person, if any, responsible for the death of Angadi Prabhakara
Rao and.
(3) To point out lapses on the part of any authority or person or persons, if any, in
connection with this incident.
The Commission of Inquiry has conducted inquiry and submitted its report to the
Government. The report of the Commission of inquiry was placed before the State
Legislative Assembly. It was sated that instructions have been issued to the Director
General and Inspector-General of Police, Hyderabad to places the Circle Inspector of
Potice, Sri.D. Sreedhara Reddy and the sub-Inspector of Police Sr. M. Satyanarayana
Rao (the petitioner) under suspension, initiate departmental enquiry against them arid
launch prosecution against them. The Commissioner of La rid Revenue, Hyderabad
was also instructed to place Sri V. Subba Rayudu, Mandai Revenue Officer under
suspension. The Government of Andhra Pradesh by its order dated
15-7-1986 directed the Special Inspector-General of Police, C.B.C.LD., to launch
prosecution against erring officers: The Inspector of Police and the writ petitioner were
placed under suspension and departmental enquiry was initiated:
*1997 Cr.L.J. 3741 (AP.)

The Special Inspector-General of Police (Crimes), C.B.C.L.D entrusted the case for
investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.LD. vide his proceedings
dated 21-8-1986. The Deputy Superintendent of Police suo motu registered a case in
crime No’. 139 of 1986 under Section 342, 330, 302 and 218, LP.C.. against D.-
Sreedhar Reddy, Inspector of Police, the writ petitioner and the Executive
Magistrate.Chrala, V. Subbarayudu and took up investigation. During the course of
investigation, it was found that Angadi Prabhakar Rao’s death was natural expert medial
evidence was not placed before the Commission of Inquiry, no offence under Section
302 or 304, LP.C. was established against any police officers, overwhelming evidence
recorded revealed that neither the deceased nor is mother wa,s either beaten or
tortured while they were in police custody on 26th and 27th April, 1985, Angadi
Prabhakar Rao was beaten with sticks at the time of apprehension by the Head
Comtable and Jakkaraiah and the Inspector of Police and ‘the petitioner are guilty of
manipulating the records for which they are punishable under Section 2,18, LP.C.
Report for the investigating officer was sent to the Special Inspector-General of Police,
who is turn sent io the Chief Secretary to Government seeking instructions for the
disposal of the case. On 31-3-1988, this Court in W.P.M.P. Nos 1333/88 and 1334/88 in
W.P. No. 1083/88directedthe Dy. Superintendent of Police to complete investigation
within one month and submit the report of the case to the Magistrate and report
compliance immediately thereafter. After perusing the letter of the Special Inspector-
General of Police, the Chief Secretary on 15-4-1988 issued proceedings to the effect
that the Government have decided that there is no need to deviate, from the earlier
course of ‘action decided and reported to the Legislative Assembly, and the Director
General and the inspector-General of Police are requested to proceed with the
prosecution of the’ officers without any further delay. Thereafter, a charge-sheet under
Sections 324,354,342, 330, 218 and 302 read with 34, I.P.C. was filed by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Hyderabad, and it was taken cognizance’ of by the II
Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala in P.R.C. No. 18 of 1989. AlI the facts gathered
during investigation and as reflected in the letter dated1-1-2-1997 were not mentioned
in the charge-sheet. Only an eclipsed version was given basing on the report of the
Commission of Inquiry, which ‘cannot be treated as a report under Section 173(2) of Cr.
P.C. Assailing the said action this writ petition is filed.
The Government has no power and jurisdiction to interfere with the discretionary power
of the investigating authority and direct it to file a report even if in the opinion of the
investigating authority no case is made out against the accused.
No other authority except the officer in-charge of police station, can form an opinion as
to whether on material collected a case is made out to place the accused before the
Magistrate for trail. If the officer in charge of police station is of opinion and submits a
a final report to the effect that no case is made out to send up the accused for trial, no
other authority has power to direct him to change his opinion, and file submit a chargesheet
to the Magistrate. However, the Magistrate is under no, obligation to accept the
final report of the police, if he does not agree with the opinion formed by the police.
Thus, where the investigating officer’s report revealed that no case has been made out,
except the offence under Section 218, I.P.C., against the petitioner, the direction of the
Chief Secretary to the State Government for filling of charge sheet for the offences,
which are not’ made out, prima facie, as per the report of the investigation officer,
amounts to giving direction in contravention of the, provisions of the Code. At the most,
by virtue of the power of superintendence the Chief Secretary or the State Government
can direct the investigating officer to conduct further investigation as provided in Section
173(8) of Cr. P.G. But in the instant case, the report of the Commission of Inquiry wastabled
before the Legislature and it was reported before it that the Government will
proceed with the prosecution. The-report of Commission of Inquiry is not a report by
investigating officer. According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the
report of the investigating officer for superior officer is only the report of the investigating
officer. Therefore, the direction of the- Chief Secretary is contrary to the provisions of
Cr. P. C. The authority exercising the power of superintendence under Section 3 of the
Police Act, at the most, can direct the investigating officer to ‘conduct further
investigation as per Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. but it cannot straightway direct the
investigating officer to file charge-sheet, when no case is made out according to the
report of investigating officers.
Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab.
In this case the Supreme Court has’ discussed the procedure for recording of
confession under Section 15 of the TADA Act. ‘
In view of the legal position vesting authority on higher police officer to record the,
confession hitherto enjoyed by the judicial officer in the normal procedure there should
be no breach of procedure and the accepted norms of recording the confession which
should reflect only the true and voluntary statement and there should be no room for
hyper, criticism that the authority has obtained an invented confession as a source of
proof irrespective of the truth and creditability.
As per Section 15(1), a confession can, either be reduced into writing or recorded or
any mechanical device like cassettes, tapes or sound tracks from which sounds or
images can be reproduced. Since the recording of evidence on mechanical device can
be tampered, tailored, tinkered, edited and erased etc., there must be some severe safe
guards which should be scrupulously observed while recording a confession under
Section 15(1) so that the possibility of extorting any false confession can be prevented
to some appreciable extent.
Sub-section (2) of Section 15 enjoins a statutory obligation on the part of the police
officer recording the confession to explain to the, person, making it that he is not bound’
to make a confession and to give a statutory warning that if he does so it may be used
as evidence against him. Also Rule 15 of the TADA Rules imposes certain conditions on
the police officer with regard to the mode C)f recording the confession and imposes
certain requirements on the police officer recording, the confession. For these and
foregoing reasons it must be held that Section 15 is not liable to be struck down since,
that section does ‘not offend either Article 14 or Article 21 ‘of the Constitution.
Guidelines: However, following guidelines are laid down so as to ensure that the
confession obtained in the pre-indictment interrogation by a police officer not lower in
rank than a Superintendent of police not tainted with any vice but is in strict conformity
with the well recognised and accepted aesthetic principles and fundamental fairness:
*(1994) 3SCC 569
(1) The confession should be recorded in a free atmosphere in the same language in,
which the person is examined and as narrated by him;
(2) The person from whom a confession has been recorded under Section 15(1) of the Act,
should be produced before the, Chief, Metropolitan, Magistrate or the Chief Judicial,
Magistrate to whom the confession is required to be sent under Rule15(5) along ‘with
the original statement of confession, written or recorded on mechanical device without
unreasonable delay;
(3) The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate should scrupulously
record the statement,’ if any, made by the accused so produced and get his signature
and in case of any complaint of torture, the person should be directed to be produced
for medical examination before a Medical Officer not lower in rank than of an’ Assistant
Civil Surgeon;
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no police
officer below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner of Police in the Metropolitan cities
and elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent
rank, should investigate any offence punishable under this Act of 1987.
This is necessary in view of the drastic provisions of this Act, more so when the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 under Section 17 and the Immoral Traffic Prevention
Act, 1956 under Section 13, authorise only a police officer of a specified rank to
investigate the offences under those specified Acts.
(5) This police officer if he is seeking the custody of any person for pre-indictment or pre
trial interrogation from the judicial custody, must file an affidavit sworn by him explaining
the reason not only for such custody but also for the delay;, if any, in seeking the police
(6) In case” the person” taken for interrogation, on receipt of the statutory warning that he is
not bound to make a confession and that if he does so” the said statement may be used
against him as evidence, asserts his rights silence, the police officer must respect his right
of assertion without making any compulsion to give a statement of disclosure.
State of Maharashtra vs Damu Gopinath Shinde*
A1 Damu Gopi Nath was arrested on 26.02.1995 and with his interrogation the police
could make a break-through regarding the mysterious: disappearances and death of the
children. Arrests of the remaining three accused were followed swiftly and, thereafter,
investigation progressed to a considerable extent. Certain articles were recovered
consequent upon the information elicited from the accused and such recovery threw
further’ light on the multiple infanticides. A confession was recorded by Ms. Anjali Apte,
a Judicial Magistrate, First Glass on’ 26.05.1995 and it became the sheet-anchor of the
prosereoution matrix.
The Division Bench to sideline the confession gave the following reasons:
1. The fourth accused-Balu Joshi ‘remained in police custody for a considerably
long period and that circumstance is sufficient to view his confession with
2. The Sub-Jail, Newasa (in which the accused was interred0 was located adjacent
to the police station and hence the mere fact that he was locked up in the Sub-
Jail is not enough to dispel the” fear in the mind of the confession regarding
police survillence.
3. P.W. 19 (Mrs. Anjali Apte) was a Judicial Magistrate at Ahmednagar whereas,
there was a Judicial Magistrate First Class at Newasa itself. As the accused was
locked up in the Sub-Jail at Newasa, there ‘is no explanation why a Magistrate
belonging to a distant place was asked to record the confession, in preference to
a Magistrate at a near place.
4. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 42) has not explained how he knew that Balu
Joshi (A-4) was willing to make a’ confession to him. Learned Judges draw an
inference like the following:
“If the circumstance, that the Police Station is adjacent to Sub-Jail, NeWaS3, is taken
into consideration, then an “inference can very well be drawn that nobody but police
contacted Balu Joshi (A-4) and Police informed Mr.” Suryawanshi (P.W. 44) that the
accused was willing to make. Confessional statement.
“2000 Cr.L.J. 2301
The geographical distance between the two buildings, sub jail at ‘N’ where accused was
locked up and the police station – Could not be a consideration, to decide the possibility
of police exerting control over a detenu. To keep a detenu in the police fear it is not
necessary that the location of the police station should be proximal to the edifice in
which the prisoner is detained in judicial custody. In many places judicial Courts are
situated very rear to police station house, or the officers of higher police officers would
be housed in the Some complex. It is not a contention to be countenanced that such
nearness would vitiate the independence of judicial function in any manner. Further ‘N’
is a taluk located within the territorial limits of the district of ‘A’. The Chief Judicial
Magistrate. ‘A’ was approached for nominating a Magistrate within his jurisdiction for
recording the ‘confession. There could have been a variety of reasons for the Chief
Judidal Magistrate for choosing a particular Magistrate to do the work. When not even a
question was put to Magistrate recording confession to the Investigating Officer as to
why the CJM, ‘A’ did not assign the work to a Magistrate at, ‘N’, it is not proper for the’
High Court to have’ used that as a ground for holding that voluntariness of the
confession was vitiated; Similarly. it is a worthless exercise to ponder over how or from,
which source the investigating officer would have come to know that the accused was
desiring to, confess. Investigating Officer can have different sources to know that fact
and he is not obliged to state, in Court, the sarne, particularly in view of the ban
contained in S.162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus the voluntariness of the
confession cannot be doubted. The basic idea embedded in S. 27′ of _vidence Act is
the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events: The doctrine is founded on the
principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength’ of any.
information obtained fr()m’ a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the
information supplied by the. prisoner is true. The information might be confessional
arnon-inculpatory in nature” but if it ,
results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information. Hence the legislature
permitted such information to be used as evidence by restricting the admissible portion
to the minimum. It- is now well-settled
that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in the
Section. .
No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in ‘evidence is confined to that
portion of the information ‘which “distinctry relates to the fact thereby discovered.” But
the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or
incom’prehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent which

. .
understandability. In the instant case the fact discovered by investigating officer that
accused had carried the dead body of child to the spot on the motorcycle. No doubt,
recovery of dead body of child from the canal was antecedent to the information which
the investigating officer had obtained. If nothing more was recovered pursuant to and
subsequent to obtaining the information from the accused, there would not have been
any discovery or any fact at all. But-when thev broken glass piece was recovered from
that spot and that piece was found to be part of the tall lamp of the motorcycle of coaccused
alleged to be used to carry deceased child, it can safely be held that he
Investigating officer discovered the fact that accused had carried the dead body on that
particular motor cycle up to the spot.
Paras Yadav and others vs State of aihar*
Accused Paras Yadav and two others assaulted Sambhu Yadav at about 8.00 p.m.
and gave him Chhura (knife) blow in abdomen. On hulla (nioise) being raised some
public porsons and Sub-Inspector of Police, Sh. Dinanath Singh reached the spot
while he was on patrolling duty. He recorded the fardbeyan under Section 307
L.P.C. The victim was shifted to hospital wherehe
succumbed to the injuries at
night of 8th February, 1983. The Sessions Court convicted the accused by relying
on fardbeyan (Ext. 1), which was treated as dying declaration by the L.d Addl
Sessions Judge. After, appreciating the entire evidence on record, the High Court
has upheld the conviction of the appellants. Hence, this appeal by specialleave is
In our view, there is no reason to disbelieve the oral dying declaration ad deposed
by number of witnesses, and as recorded in fardbeyan of deceased Sambhu
Yadav. The fardbeyan was recorded by the Police Sub-Inspector on the scene of
occurrence itself, within few minutes of the occurrence of the incident Witnesses
also rushed to the scene of offence after hearing hulla gulla. The medical evidence
as deposed by PW-II also corroborates the prosecution version. Hence, the Courts
below have rightly convicted Paras Yadav for the offence punishable under Section
302, I.P.C.
*1999 Cr.L.Jo 1122
Gulam Hussain vs State of Delhi*
In the instant case the Dying Declaration Exhibit PW22/B was recorded by PW22
ASI Balwan Singh in the hospital on 14-10-1989 at about 6.30 a.m. after getting an
opinion from the Doctor that the injured was fit for statement. The endorsement of
the doctor is recorded as E xhibit PW22/A. . .
Legal Issue: Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that as the
statement was recorded by the investigating officer which was treated as FIR, the
same could not be treated as dying declaration and was inadmissible in evidence.
The submission has no substance because. at the time of re.cording the statement
PW22 Balwan Singh did not possess the capacity of an investigating officer as the
investigation had not commenced by then. Such a statement can be treated as a
dying declaration which is admissible in evidence under Section 32(1) of tile
Evidence Act. After critically scanning the statement of P\N22 ASI Balwan Singh
and details of Exhibit PW22/B, we have no hesitation to hold that the aforesaid
statement was voluntarily made by the deceased which was reduced to writing and
have rightly been treated as dying declaration after the death of the maker.
*2000 Cr. L.J. 3949
Tahir vs State-(Delhi)*
According to the prosecution case on 14.11.1990, a mob collected at Gurdwara Sis
Ganj Sahib in Chandni Chowk, Delhi and moved in a procession towards the ldgah
Park. A meeting was going on in ldgah Park where some provocative speeches
were made by some of the speakers leading to communal riots. At about 4:30 p.m.
the riot was at a pitch and stones and other missiles, were hurled on the members
of the opposite side from Idgah Road – Nawab Road of Sadar Bazar by the rioters.
The appellant was supporting the mob of rioters and was found holding a
countrymade pistol in his hand and waving it in the air. The police party made some
arrests. The appellant was apprehended by SI Dldar Singh SHO PW 4, who caught
him along with the pistol. The appellant was then handed over to SI Sukhbir Singh
PW 7 who arrested him in the riot case and later on formally arrested him ill a case
under Section 27 of the Arms. Act for being in possession of a country made pistol
without any authority also. A ruqa was sent by ASI Diwani Ram PW 6 to Sl lshwar
Chand PW 1 who registered the FIR and copy of the FIR was sent to SI Sukhbir
Singh PW 7, After the arrest of the appellant, the countrymade pistol was seized
from his possession and sealed into a parcel which was kept with the Moharir Head
Constable (Malkhana) PW 3. The paicel containing the countrymade pistol was
later on sent to the Central Forensic science Laboratory for examination and the
ballistic expert opined that the.12 bore countrymade pistol was firearm as defind in
the Arms Act, 1959 and was found to be in a working order. The report from the
Central Forensic Science Laboratory with the opinion of the expert was received on
27:12.1990. Since the place from where the appellant was arrested along with the
unauthorised firearm fell in the area notified under TADA, the investigating agency
after obtaining the statutory sanction registered a case against the appellant for the
offence under Section 5, TADA. On completion of the investigation the appellant
was sent up fortrial before the Designated Court and on conviction for an offence
under Section 5 TADA, was sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay fine
of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for two months.
With view to connect the appellant with the crime, the prosecution examined seven
witnesses FS. PW 1 is the duty officer who recorded the formal FIR Ex. PW 1/A.
Sealed parcel containing the countrymade pistol was taken from the Moharir Head
Constable Malkhana PW 3 to the Central. Forensic Science Laboratory by PW 2.
These three witnesses are of a formal nature.
*(1996) 3 SCC 338
PW 4, Inspector Didar Singh was the SHe .of the area at the relevant time and was
present at the spot along with the police force. From the evidence of Inspector
Didar ‘Singl’ PW 4, it clearly emerges that the appellant was apprehended at the
spot at about 4.30 p.m. on 14.11.1990 arid at that time he was found holding a
countrymade pistol in his hand and waving it in the air. It also transpires from his
evidence that because of provocative speeches made at Idgah Park communal
rioting had ensued and brickbats stones and other missiles were being hurled at the
opposite party from the rioting mob present at the Idgah Road. Constable Mahabir
Singh PW 5 fully corroborated the statement of Inspector Didar Singh PW 4 in all
material particulars. It was he who took the ruqa from PW 4 to the police station for
registration of the formal FIR. The evidence of Didar Singh PW 4 is also
corroborated by ASI Diwani Rani PW 6 and Inspector Sukhbir Singh PW 7. Nothing
has been brought out in the evidence of any of these witnesses to show as to why
they should falsely depose against the appellant. They have given a dear and
cogent version of the occurrence and their evidence inspires confidence. Their
testimony has remained unshaken in crossexamination.
The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC claimed
innocence and submitted that he was apprehended from the tea shop outside his
his near Filmistan when some riot was going on near and around the ‘Idgah and he
was later on taken to the police station and implicated in this case. The appellant
has, however, led no evidence in defence. The reason for the alleged false
implication has, however, not been spert out.
Our critical analysis of the evidence of the aforesaid four police official has created
an impression on our minds that they are trustworthy witnesses and their evidence
suffers from no infirmity whatsoever. Nothing has been brought out in their lengthy
cross-examination which may create any doubt about their veracity. We find their
evidence to be reliable. Keeping in view the circumstances for the ‘situation’ when
the appellant was apprehended along with the countrymade pistol, the failure of the
prosecution to examine any independent witnesses of the locality does not detract
from the reliability of the prosecution case.
No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials, merely because
they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence
which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence
of the police officials. if found reliable unless corroborated, by some
independent evidence . (emphasis supplied) The rule of prudence,
however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since
they can be however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their
*(1996) 3 SCC 338
evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected
by them. Where the evidence of the police official, after careful scrutiny I inspires
confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable it can form the basis of
conviction arid the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend
corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of
the prosecuti,on case.
Megha Singh vs State of Haryana*
The, appellant was tried under Section 6(1) of the TAOA Act, 1985 and Section 25
of the Arms Act, 1959 on the basis of FIR dated 19.09.1985 lodged in the Police
Station Baragudha. It is the prosecutioncase that on 29.09.1985 Head Constable
Siri Chand, (PW3) and Constable. BhupSingh. (PW2) and other police personnel
were present onthe Kacha (unmetelled) route connecting Village Faggu with Village
Rohan. At about 12.00 noon the accused was spotted while coming from the side
of Village Rohan. At the accused after seeing the police party tried to cross through
the field the police party became suspicious and he was intercepted and the Head
Constable Siri Chand, PW3 thereafter searched the person of the accused and on
search a country made pistol Ext. P-1 was recovered from the right dub of his
chadar and three live cartridges Exts. P-2 to P-4 were also recovered from the right
side pocket of his shirt. The said pistol and the cartridges were possessed by the
accused without any valid licence. .After recovery of the said pistol and the
cartridges the same: were seized vide recovery memo Ext. PC and a rukka. Ext. PD
with PD with regard to the recoverywas prepared and sent to the police station on
the basis of which FIR Ext. PD-1 was recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police Charanjit
Singh. The prosecution case was sought to be proved by the said Head Constable
Sri Chand (PW 3) and Bhup Singh (PW 2). No independent witness was examined
to support the prosecution case.
PW 3, Siri Chand, Head Constable arrested the accused and on search being
conducted by him a pistol and the cartridges were recovered from the accused. It
was on his complaint a formal first information report was lodged and the case was
initiated. He being complainant should not have proceeded with the investigation of
the case. But it appears to us that he was. not only the complainant in the case but
he carried on with the investigation and examined witnesses under Section 161
CrPC. Such practice to say the least should not be resorted to so that there may not
be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation.
*(1996) 11SCC 709
Shamshul Kanwar vs State of U.P.*
It is manifest from its bare reading without subjecting to detailed and critical
analysis that the case diary is only a record of day-ta-day investigation of the
investigating officer to ascertain the statement of circumstances ascertained
through the investigation. Under sub-section (2) of Section 172, the Court is entitled
at the trial or inquiry to use the diary not as evidence in the case but as aid to it in
the inquiry or trial. Neither the accused nor his agent, by operation of sub-section
(3), shall be entitled to call for the diary, nor shall he-be entitled to use it as
evidence merely because the court referred to it. Only right given thereunder is that
if the police officer who made the entries inthe diary uses it to refresh his memory or
if the court uses it for the purpose of contradicting such witness, by operation of
Section 161 of the Code and Section 145 of the Evidence Act, it shall be used for
the purpose of contradicting such witness i.e., Investigation Officer or to explain it in
re-examination by the prosecution with permission of the court. It is therefore clear
that unless the investigating officer or the court uses it either to refresh the memory
or contradicting the investigating officer as previous statement under Section 161
that too after-drawing his attention thereto as is enjoined under Section 145 of the
Evidence Act, the entries cannot be used by the acqused as evidence.
*(1995) 4 SCC 430
Jagdish Narain and Another vs State of U.P.*
While preparing a site plan an Investigating Police officer can certainly record what
he sees and observes, for that will be direct and substantive evidence being based
on his personal knowledge but, as he was not. obviously present when the incident
took place, he has the derive knowledge as to when, where and how it happened
from persons who had seen the. incident. When a witness testifies about what he
heard from somebody else it is ordinarily not admissible in evidence being hearsay,
but if the person for whom he heard is examined to give direct evidence within the
mealling of Section 60 of the Evidence Act, 1872 the former’s evidence would be
admissible to corroborate the latter in accordance with section 157 Evidence Act.
However such a statement made to a Police Officer, when he is investigating into
ari offence in accordancewith Chapter XlI of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot
be used to even corroborate the maker thereof in view of the embargo in Section
162 (1) CrPC appearing in that chapter and can be used only to contradict him (the
maker) in accordance with the proviso thereof, except in those cases where subsection
(2) of the section applies.
If in a given case the site plan is prepared by a draftsman and not by the
Investigating officer – entries therein regarding the place from where shots were
fired or other details derived from. other Witnesses would be admissible as
corroborative evidence.
*(1996) 8 SCC 199
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Through its hony. Secreatry
State of Bihar & Others*
This is a PIL under Article 32 seeking inforcement of fundamental right under Article
21. In this petition the issue raised is negligence and failure to
give proper medical aid to an injured person taken in police custody resulting in his
death. In his affidavit the Dy. S.P. indicating that timely medical care by the
concerned police official would have saved the !ife of the victim.
It is the obligation of the police particularly after taking a person in custody to ensure
appropriate protection of the person taken into custody including medical care if
such person needs it. The Court directed the state to pay a compensation of Rs.
20,000.00 within 3 months.
*(1991) 3 SCC 482
Inder Singh vs State of Punjab and Others*
This writ petition is filed alleging the abduction and elimination of seven persons by
police team led by Dy. S.P. by misusing official machinery to wreak private
vengenance. Director C.B.I. submitted report after investigation as per the orders of
the Supreme Court dated 15.09.94. The glaring inaction and indifferent attitude of
senior officials as mentioned in the C. B.I. report is like this – SSP taking no action
on the complaint for two months and DIG sitting on it for 8 months and only crime
branch chargesheeting
the accused persons and matter was never brought to the
knowledge of the DGP.
The primary duty of those in uniform is to uphold law and order and protect the
citizen. If members of a police force resort to illegal abduction and assassination if
other members of that police force do not record and investigate complaints in this
behalf for long periods of time, if those who had been abducted are found to have
been unlawfully detained in police stations in the State concerned prior to their
probable assassination the case is not one of errant behaviors by a few members of
that police force. It betrays sc lnCrespect for the life and liberty of innocent citizens
and exposes the willingness of others in uniform to lend a helping hand to one who
wreaks private vengeance on mere suspicion. The Punjab Police as a whole merit
the Supreme. Court’s disapprobation the Crime Branch thereof a word of praise.
The Supreme Court has in recent times come across far too many instances where
the police have acted not to uphold the law and protect the citizen but in aid of a
private cause and to oppress the citizen. It is a trend that bodes ill for the country
and it must be promptly checked. The DGP Punjab is expected to take a serious
view of such cases. The Home Department of theCentral Govt. cannot also afford
to appear to be a helpless spectator. .
When the police force of a State acts as the Punjab Police has in this case the State
whose arm that force is must bear the consequences. It must do so in token of its
failure to enforce law and order and protect its citizens and to compensate in some
measure those who have
*(1995) 3 SCC 702
suffered by reason of such failure. The State of Punjab is directed to pay to the
legal representatives of each of the said seven persons an amount of Rs.1.50 lakhs
within 2 weeks. Later, when the guilty are identified the State should endeavour to
recover the said amount which is the taxpayers money.
The prosecution of those who have been charge-sheeted in connection with the
abduction and disappearance of the said seven persons should be expeditiously
conducted under the supervision of the Crime Branch of the Punjab Police. The
court trying the accused is cautioned that it should decide the case on the evidence
that may be laid before it without being unduly influenced by what has been said in
this Order.
Disciplinary inquiries must be started against the accused persons as also the SSP
and DIG concerned. Others responsible for delaying the registration of the
complaint and inquiry thereon must also be identified and proceeded against.
The State of Punjab shcilfl pay to the petitioner the costs of the writ petition
quantified at Rs.25,OOO.
Arvinder Singh Bagga vs State of Up and Others*
Where a girl was in Police Custody and a writ petition for Habeas Copus was filled
in the Supreme Court.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. Att he time the petition was moved,
the girfwas in policecustody. She has siricebeen released. But, we are afraid this
cannot be the end of the matter. The writ petition shall continue as one for qualified
habeas corpus for examining the legality of the detention for determining whether
the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the illegal detention as a public law
remedy for violation of her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution
quite apart from criminal or civil liability which may be pursued in the ordinary
*(1995) Supp (3) SCC 716
People’s Unionfor Civir Liberties
Unior of Indian and Another*
The writ petition alleged that in the state of Manipur, two persons with some
persons were just seized from a hut and taken away to aIong distance by the police
and wereshct there.
It is true that Manipur is a disturbed area that there appears to be a ,good amount
to terrorist, activity affecting public order and may be even security of that State. It
may also be that under these conditions certain additional and unusual powers
have to be given to the police to deal with terrorism. It may be necessary to fight
terrorism with a strong hand which may involve vesting of good amount of
discretion in the ponce officers or other paramilitary forces engaged in fighting them
Police cannot wait till they are shot at. It is for the force on the spot to decide when
to act how to act and where to act. It is not for the court to say how the terrorists
should be fought. The Court cannot be blind to the fact that even after fifty years of
our independence our territorial integrity is not fully secure. There are several types
of separatist and terrorist activities in several parts of the country. They have to be
subdued. Whether they should be fought politically or be dealt with by force is a
matter of policy for the Government to determine. The courts may not be the
appropriate forum to determine those questions. But the present case appears to
be one here two persons along with some others were just seized from a hut taken
to a long distance away in a truck and shot there. This type of activity cannot
be countenanced by the courts even in the case of disturbed areas. If the police
had information that terrorists were gathering at a particular place and if they had
surprised them and arrested them the proper course forthem was to deal with them
according to law. Administrative Liquidation was certainly not a course open to
In such cases award of compensation is a remedy available in public law based on
strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights. Rupees one lac be given as
compensation to the families of each of the deceased. The same shall be paid by
Government of Manipur. The petitioners shall be entitled to the costs of writ petition
assessed at Rs. 10,000.00.
*(1997) 3 SCC 433
Smt. Vandana Vikas Waghmare
State of Maharashtra and other*
In this writ petition the killing of three dreaded person in encounter was alleged to
be false. This allegation of take encounter was not supported by any evidence. Only
reason given was this that no injuries were found on police party.
Merely for the reason that police party sustained no injury, the genuineness of
encounter cannot be doubted on this ground alone. The High Court further
observed as under:
Very often within the precinct of the Metrepolis of Mumbai, the encounters between
the underworld dons and the police take place and in which either of the parties is
being killed. However, it can be taken a note that several gangs are functioning in
different areas and parts of the Mumbai Metrepolis and continuing their underworld
activities. However it was and whatsoever high or serious it may be,it is the
responsibility of the police concerned to take such of the adequate and appropriate
steps to book them under the law. It does not mean but police organisation have te
resort to a third degree method of action and the law te be taken in their own hands
to deal with them unlawfully. While saying so, Court is also conscious of the fact
that a few charges may be levelled against so memembers of the police
organisation in a given particular case, but it cannot be proper to generalise the
same against all keeping in view of the fact that no profession demands a sacrifice
of the life to uphold the rule of law and that if the police organisation has done such
a meritorious sacrifice, it would be properly honoured. Of course, the duty, of the
police organisation in the country has become much more onerous than the other
organisationer the departments, highly accountable to the society
for the reason that whole of the society by and large in the country would
depend upon, the risky job done by the palace department. Keeping in view of the
above and applying the same to the facts of the instant case the activities of the
police in dealing with the three dreaded gangsters are within the
*(1998) Cr.L.J. 4295 (Bombay)
legal ambit and that they have not dons anything beyond, for Section 100 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section
189 of the Bombay Police Manual Vol. VlII provides proper guidance to the police
party. In the instant case there is no reason to discard what has been stated by the
three police officers on onoath and the police officers resisted the case of the
petitioner particularly when the deceased were involved number of serious crimes.
There is no basis for ordering the enquiry by any other agency and if so, it is bound
to demoralise the police force and dissuade them from doing their lawful duty.
Therefore, it would be against the public interest to order the judicial enquiry or
other enquiries as asked for unless there is good reason to hold prima facie that the
case of encounter made out, was false.
In the instant case there is evidence to show that the police party had selected
three teams which must be conversant with the retaliation work with all accurate
aim, adequately took and that above all the police personnel decided to lay the trap
and secured the accused as fully trained personnel use the fire arms and it was
thus, while they retaliate against the untrained persons, the injuries found on them
could have been caused by the bullets fired by the trained persons, may reach the
vulnerable parts of the body. If this being so, there is nothing strange for severe
injuries found on the important parts of the human anatomy and the three dreaded
personsand it is not possible for the policemen to sustain any injuries on their part.
Ravikant Patil vs The State of Maharashtra & others
In the present case, the petitioner was arrested in connection with a murder case
and while he was transferred from the police station to the Court for an order of
remand, he was handcuffed and both his arms were tied by a rope and then was
taken in procession through the streets and squares of a city by the Inspector of
Police. This phenomenon was witnessed by a large number of people in the city.
He was paraded for the purpose of investigation and for pointing out houses of
other accused but actually no investigation was carried out. Even in the FIR his
name was not included as one of the suspects. It was alleged that the petitioner
had long criminal record but not a single case was pointed out in which he was
convicted. There was no material to show that he would have escaped through
police custody when he was surrounded by large posse of policemen. The reasons
for handcuffing were not recorded contemporaneously.
That the petitioner was subjected to wholly unwarranted humiliation and indignity
which cannot be done to any citizen of lndia irrespective of whether he was
accused of minor offence or major offence. The action on the part of the Inspector
of Police was wholly unwarranted and unjustified and was done disregarding the
Rules found in the Bombay Police Manual. He had acted outside the scope of
authority vested in him under the Cr. PC. There might be criminal cases pending
against the petitioner but that itself would not entitle a police officer to subject a
person to the indignity and humiliation to which the petitioner was subjected to in
this case. The duty to impose a restraint should not be utilised as an opportunity for
exposing an under trial prisoner to public ridicule and humiliation
Life, liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Art. 21 includes life with dignity and liberty
with dignity. Liberty must mean freedom from humiliations and indignities at the
hands of the authorities to whom the custody of a person may pass temporarily or
otherwise under the law ofthe land
*1991 Cr.L.J. 2344 (Bombay)
Prakash Sitaram Shelar,
The State of Maharashtra & others*
The petitioner in each one of the these petitions was served with a notice under
Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, informing him that it was proposed to extern
him from Thane and Bombay Districts for a period for years on the grounds
mentioned in the said notice. In the first place, each one of the petitioners was
informed thathe was indulging in criminal actions within the jurisdiction of the Wagle
Estate Police Station by forming a gang of unsocial elements. He was also told that
he was indulging in beating without any reason the poor leper patients in the area.
Each petitioner was also told that he was, along with other, causing loss to the
properties of the people. After narrating the said facts it was stated that people are
unwilling the come forward to give evidence against him, being afriad of danger to
their lives and properties. Thereafter, each one of them was told that a case was
registered against him for the offences punishable under Chapter XVII of the Indian
Penal Code. Having said this, however, the notice did not mention that in respect of
the case registered against each of the petitioners, witnesses were not willing to
depose against him.
The notice, in our opinion, contains several defects. In the first place, the
petitioner in each of the petitions was not informed the period during which he was
indulging in anti-social activities. On an allegation that the petitioners have been
indulging in anti-social activities without mentioning the period during which those
activities took place no person can reasonably put up a defence. If the activities had
happened 10 years ago, he could easily persuade the authorities to the effect that
there has been a lull in those activities on his part and no order of externment is
called for. We are also of the opinon that the allegations of beating people, causing
loss to the people’s properties are somewhat vague. Such order of externmemt is
illegal and liable to be set aside.
*1991 Cr.LJ. 1251 (Bombay)
Sirajkhan vs State of Maharastra**
The present Criminal Writ Petition is directed against the order of externment
passed by the Sub Division o f Magistrate, Amravati, vide order dated 03.04.1998
whereby under Section 56(1 )(2) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, the aplicatn was
extemed for a period of one year from the Amravati District.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the instant case respondent
No.2 issued notice under Section 51 of the Bombay Police Act on 31.12.1996. It is
further contended that the necessary enquiry was conducted by the respondent and
thereafter respondent No.1 issued the impugned order dated 03.04.1998 by which
the petitioner is externed. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the
grounds mentioned in the above referred show cause notice are stale and old and,
therefor either impugned order which is based on such grounds is not sustainable in
The externee is entitled to know only the material particulars of the crime in
question and not the details as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If
the detaits are required to be supplie by the authorities to the externee before
passing of the Externment order then the very purpose will be frustrated It must be
borne in mind that taking recourse to the provisions of the Act is an exception and it
is only in an emergant situation that such remedies are expected to be resorted to
by the authorities inthe interest of the society. Hence, the above referred contention
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
*1999 Cr:L.J. 2959 (Bombay)
Sh. Rambhai alias Ramlo Khimchand
. .
The State ()f Gujarat & anothers*
The petition approached the Bombay High Court for quashing the externment order
dated 11.04.1989, externing the petitioner from.the limits of Junagadh, Rajkot and
Amreli districts for a period two years. The sub Divisional Magistrate, Veaval issued
notice on 05.12.1988 under Section 56(a)(b) of the Bombay Police, Act, 1951
alleging the following acts committed by the petitioner in Hudco Colony, Vivekanand
Colony and on the way leading to Hudco Colony situated at the simof village Dari
which are within the limits of Prabhaspatan Police Station.
1. You are forcibly collecting money from’ the innocent persons by detaining them
those who are living in the aforesaid area or persons passing through the way
and if they do not pay money, you give, threat to kill them. ‘
2. You are consuming liquor and under the influence of liquor in public, you are
picking up quarrels, and committing offences in relation to property and undue
liberty with women.
3. If any person lodges a case against you, you pressuring him to enter into
compromise by giving threat of killing the person concerned and create tense
situation and as a result of which nobody is ready to give evidence against you
in public.
While passing an order of externment the nature of the offences would not be the
sole criteria and the authority will have to go into the other pertinent question as to
whether the offending activity of the individual concern has reached that degree of
harm to the society that the interest of the society of even of that particular locality
requires that this individual who has become public menace should be externed
from the locality. Therefore, where the externing authority has taken into
consideration the incident which has not been stated in the notice issued to the
externee u/S.56 of the Bombay Police Act, the failure on the part of the externing
authority to put on notice to the externee regarding this particular circumstance
vitiates the order of externment and offends
*1991 Cr.L.J. 3159 (Gujrat) ,
the principle of fair play arid justice. No doubt, the show cause notice is able to give the
area in which the externee was committing the offence and also the period during which
such offences were committed. The notice ‘also states the particulars of offences
committed by the externee which is clear from the averment to the effect that is a
dangerous and fierce person and that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose
against him due to the fear to their life and property.. The instances which have been
enumerated in the show cause notice no doubt make out a case for externment;
nevertheless, the order of externment adds one more instance to the effect that “it is
also stated in the complaint that the persons those who are having status and means
have shifted from it so that they may not become victim of such torts by the externee.
This particular instance has not been put on notice to the externee though it finds place
in the externment order. Natural justice requires that the person affected should have
notice of the relevant material on which the authority concerned bases its conclusion.
It cannot be said that unsubstantiated or non-existent ground has been taken into
consideration, but aground which is germane for the purpose of externing. a pa,rticular
person has been taken into consideration by the exteming authority without putting the
extemee on notice as”regards that ground. If that be so, the Court cannot substitute
objective judicial test for the subjective satisfaction of the executive authority and come
to the conclusion that the executive authority; dehors the said ground which has not
been put on notice to the externee was able to arrive at a decision for the purpose of
externing the person concerned in that particular case. .
Sitaben M. Thakore
Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad*
In the instant case, the show cause notice was issued on 25.02.1994 and externment
order was passed on 13.07.1995 i.e. after a long delay of 1 year and 4 months. Even if
this delay was on account of externee, it cannot’ be denied that the authority holding
the, enquiry failed to regulate the proceedings in true spirit of the provisions of Section.
59 of the Act.
The long delay on the facts in present case alone is sufficient to vitiate the impugned
order of externment.
The inquiry under Section 59 of the Act, being of urgent nature should be held as
expeditiously as possible, and in particular, only a short notice of 3 to 7 days may be
given for submitting the written statement, and immediately the date should be fixed for
examination of witnesses, and once examination of witnesses begun, the same should
be continued, unless the authority finds the adjournment of the same beyond the
following day to be necessary for the reasons to be recorded. It is not necessary to
record each and everything whatever being stated, if in the opinion of the authority, the
same is not relevant. No adjournments should be granted on the flimsy grounds of the
lawyer or that the externee is busy’ in attending the marriage or that the advocate is
busy in other Court matters. These are not the grounds for adjournment. No definite
period of inquiry can be provided. It depends upon the facts of each case. If there is a
long delay in passing the order of externment after the issuance of show cause notice,
the externment authority cannot reasonably come to conclusion that the movement or
the acts of the externee are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to
person or property, so as to prevent him to moving himself from certain areas. ,
*1997 Cr.L.J. 4511 (Gujrat)
Hussainmiya alias Razakmiya Qadri vs State of Gujarat*
In the instant case there is apparent contradiction between the show cause notice and
the externment order. In’the show cause notice, it was shown that the action is
proposed to be taken under S 56-A of the Bombay Police Act; whereas the externment
order shows that the power was exercised under S.56-B of the Bombay Police Act.
1. These contradictions, if taken at their face value can be said to have given rise to
a situation of non-application of mind by the externing authority not only to the
material on record viz. to the show cause notice but also to the provisions of S.56-
A and S.56-B’ of the Bombay Police Act. Non-application of mind to the legal
provisions and to the material on record will also render the, order of externment
bad in law.
2. If the externmerit is proposed from the contiguous districts, it must be disclosed, in
the show cause notice why such externment is proposed and thesa,me should be
repeated in the eXternmentorder. Further, if, it is not disclosed in the show cause
notice but is disclosed in the final order, the final order would be rendered invalid.
3. There is no prohibition against the externing authority to pass externment order
against the externee, to extern him ‘from contiguous districts., But for that he has
to give opportunity to theexternee to show cause why he should not be externed
from the contiguous districts.
*1999 Cr.LJ: 2401 (Gujrat) ,
Dater Gatar Suleman vs The State ot Gujarat & others
Brief facts are that show cause notice (Annexure A) was issued by the Exteming
Authority to the petitioner’ to show cause why, in view of five criminal cases one under
Indian Penal Code and four under the Prohibition Act and other serious anti-social and
criminal activities, order for extermment be not passed against him. The’ petitioner
appeared, submittecf reply t.o the show cause notice. After considering the evidence
and submissions of the petitioner the Exterriing Authority vide order contained in
Annexure B directed and ordered extemment of the petitioner from four districts, viz.
Jamnagar, Rajkot, Kutch and Junagadh for a period of two years. The petitioner
preferred an AppeaI, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 29.8.1998, vide
Annexure C. It is therefore, this writ petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid order and
the show cause notice.
1. There is no prohibition or bar in any law preventing the Externing Authority from
passing order of externment without considering lesser drastic remedy. The
Externing Authority, if satisfied could have passed the order of externment.
2. Where on the one hand the mind of the Externing Authority was influenced by
another case in as mush as he observed that thus within a period of three years
two offences punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been
registered against the petitioner, the petitioner was also deprived of opportunity to
meet against this belated allegation quoted in the Judgement of the Externing
Authority. If the mind of the Externing Authority was influenced from extraneous
factor about which the petitioner was not given an opportunity to meet, it will
render: the entire order invalid as well as illegal.
*1999 Cr.L.J. 3471. (Gujrat) .
Mohammed Shafi vs The State of M.P.*
Petitioner earlier aIleged to be involved in trade of opium and contraband articles-
Failure of Police to show that he was involved in such cases at the time of passing of
order pIacing him under Surveillance-No evidence to show that passing of said order
was necessary for saving Society from peril of insecurity, disturbance and breach of
The cause for surveillance shown by the State in the instant case was that the petitioner
was actively engaged in the trade of opium and contraband articles. This list was a list
showing the date of some offences, the report and the contraband seized. Nothing has
been placed on record by the police to show that now the petitioner was involved in all
the aforesaid cases. Further more there was no evidence to support the fact that they
surveillance of the petitioner was necessary for saving the society from the peril of
insecurity, disturbance and breach of peace. Therefore, the order of surveillance passed
by the Superintendent of Police, against the petitioner would be illegal.
As regards the surveillance in the form of secret picketing cannot be said to be an
infringement in the right of citizen to free movement or personal liberty. Such an
infringement can be said to be caused only if by any direct or tangible mode such a right
is infringed. It is not intended to protect the personal sensitiveness of-the citizen by
invoking any of the provisions of the Constitution. However, the word ‘picketing’ has to
understood properly by the authorities and it should not be used for offering resistance
to the visitors of the persons who visit the persons under such secret picketing. Neither
there should be any physical appearance causing any annoyance or invation of the
privacy of a citizen or entering the house of the subject. Secret picketing has to be
confined only to keep a watch and maintain a record of the visitors if it may be
necessary. Merely convictions in criminal cases where nothing gravely imperils safety of
society can be regarded as warranting surveillance under the Regulation. As regards
the domiciliary visits and picketing they should be confined only to those cases where
there is a clearest case of danger to security. Such picketing and domiciliary visits
should not be taken up as a routine.
*1993Cr.L.J. 505 (MP.)
.. .
Moti Sunar alias Moti Lal vs State of U.P.& others.*
Allegation against petitioner of indulging himself in smuggling of opium. However Police
report says that he has confined himself in his business of goldsmith and he does not
take interest in any other activity. No evidence to show that he was even challenged or
prosecuted for such offence. Suprintendent of Police ordered to open his History Sheet
Against the order this writ petition.
Para 228 of the UP Police regulation casts the duty on the Police Officer to construe the
regulation strictly and open the history sheet only on the basis of certain materials. It
also casts the duty on the Police Officer to reasonably believe, that the person against
whom history sheet is opened, is a confirmed and professional criminal or habitual
offender. Thus, where on the report of some police Constable or Inspector, the
Superintendent of Police only has passed a cryptic order “History sheet B Class” and
the order did not indicate the “reasonable belief’ of the Superintendent of Police that the
petitioner was a confirmed or professional criminal or habitual offender who indulged
into the smuggling of Opium and it was the case of police, itself, that the petitioner has
no criminal antecedent, but without looking into the report of the police and without
caring to look into the contents of para 228 of the regulation, the Superintendent of
Police has approved the report, the order passed by the Superintendent of Police
opening the history sheet against the petitioner would suffer from non-application of
mind. Even in the life of the criminal or habitual offender, time may come where he
starts living a peaceful life. When according to police reports, at a later stage the
petitioner has confined his activity to his profession of goldsmith and the report further
indicated that except that profession he did not take interest in any other activity.
Therefore, the police surveillance in the case of the petitioner has seriously encroached
upon the privacy of the petitioner, and his fundamental right of the personal Iiberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the freedom of the movement
guaranteed by Article 19(1) (d).
. *1997 Cr.L.J; 2260 (Allahabad)
Moreover there were no sufficient grounds for Superintendent of Police to entertain a
reasonable belief that the surveillance was required in the case of the petitioner and
there existed no evidence to support the fact that the surveillance of the petitioner was
necessary. Hence, the order passed by theSuperintendent of Police, opening the history
sheet against the petitioner at police station deserved to be quashed.
Sunil Kumar
Superintendent of Police, Ballia and others *
The petitioner, a young man of 22 years, is political active and has been allegedly
shown involved in sum criminal acts on the behest of political rivals. The petitioner
through this petition under Article 226, prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the report
of respondent No. 2 given on 14.08.1994 and recommendation of respondent No.4
dated 16.08.1994 for opening of History sheet and also order or respondent No.1,
permitting opening of the History Sheet against the petitioner. .
If from the above report opening of history sheet – A is tested in the light of Regulation.
228 (1) it can be said that there is no allegation- that the petitioner is a dacoit or railway
goods wagon thief or abettor in such crime. There is allegation in the report regarding
burglary and cattle-theft against the petitioner but no case has been indicated in which
the petitioner is involved for the commission of aforesaid offences. Lifting of vehicle like
Ambassador Car does not justify opening of history sheet of Class-A. It may justify
opening of history-sheet of class-B but that has not been done. Likewise involvement of
the petitioner in a case under Section 307. IPC also does not justify opening of the
history-sheet of Class-A. Recommendation of Additional Superintendent of Police
shows that just after passage of one day on the report submitted by the Station Officer
that he recommended for opening of history-sheet without ascertaining what is the
material against the petitioner.
Even in the case where case result of-Investigation in.a case it is thought necessary to
open History Sheet agcainsta-.person, a report should be given and after receiving such
report and after further inquiry as he may think necessary the co’mpetent authority may
forward the report to the Superintendent of police. In both the situations, some inquiry is
necessary to ascertain whether the report submitted by. the Station Officerrequired
opening of History Sheet or not. It is not enough to put a blanket-seal on the report of
the Station Officer.
*1997 Cr.L.J. 3201 (Allahabad)
Gehohe-E-Miran Shah
The Secretary, Home Department,.Govt. of A.P. and others.
Here is a case where two religious associations namely, Gerohe-E-Miran Shah (the writ
petitioner) and Gharohe-E-Hazarath alias Taqui (Respondent No. 2 who got implead_d
later to the filing of the writ petition) of Machilipatnam of Krishna District are at
Loggerheads on the issue oftaking out 10th day Moharraum procession. The di_pute
relates to the route and in fact the petitioner was not permitted to takeout procession by
earlier orders of the Sub-divisional-Police Officer, Bandar, dt. 01-09-1987. For the next
year, the petitioner made an application-dated 01.08.1988 to perniit the said procession
giving out the details as regards time date as a/so the route. In the route mentioned, the
prominent place is Koneru centr of Bandar Town When there was nothing heard on the
said application dated 01.08.1988 a reminder was filed by the petitioner on 16.08.1988
Wheneven that did not yield any results, the instant writ petition was fiIed seeking the
issuance of writ of Mandamus to respondent 2 and 3 to take out the religious
When the fundamental rights are involved and there is allegation of discrimination
between twosimtlarly situated persons or associations no ambargo can be placed on
the powers of the High Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus where
discrimination was played by police authorities in parmittirig the respondent-association
to take its religious procession through a prominent center in the town while restricting
the petitioner-association from doing the same on.the ground that it would lead to law
and order problem; the said action of the pollee authorities would be improper. Both the
associations areentitled-to take their processions through that prominent center and it –
is the duty of the police. Authoritips to tackle with the law and order problem
*1993 Cr.L.J. 406 (AP.)
Dr. Arvindya Gopal Mitra ys State of West Bengal*
The police authorities refused the permission to a political party, for holding a public
meeting on the ground of likelihood of riots and communal tension particularly after the
incidence of demolition of structure at Ajodhya in Dec. 1992, and also on ground of
existence of prohibitory orders under S.144 Cr.P.C.
The refusal of permission was invalid so far as it totally prohibits holding of public
meeting, The Commissioner of Police instead of totally prohibiting the holding. of
meeting may impose necessary restrictions and take such preventive measures as he
may consider fit and proper While allowing meeting ta be held. .
That apart, right to speech hbeing a fundamental right under Art. 19(2) of Canstitution,
the right to enjoyment offundamental rights cannot be taken away on conje.ctural and.
hypothetical basis. No instance has been cited resulting in actual raw and order prablem
from the B.J.P.s meeting already held apart from thequatatians from the speeches.
Though Caurt in writ jurisdiction should not sit in appeal over the decision of the
Commissioner of Palice, hawever,in the instantcase sincetl:1ere is error apparent an the
face of the recard and there is alse jurisdictiona1error in the decision of the
Commissioner, there is scope .forinterference.
In of Superintendent Central Prison, Fategarh v. Dr. Ram. Manohar Lohia
reported in AIR1960. SC633; (1960. Cri.L.J.1002), it has been held in that case that
limitation imposed in the interest of public order to be a reasonable restriction, should be
one which has a proximate connection 0:- nexus with the public. order, but not One
farfetche.d hypothetical or problemeticalortoo remote in.thechain of its relation with the
public order.
It has also been held at paragraph 18 of page 641 (of AI R) : at p. 1010. of Cr.LL.J.) to
the following effect which is set out below :- .
*1993 CrLJ. 2096 (Calcutta)
The foregoing discussion yields, the following resuits: (1) “Public Order” is synonymous
with public safety and tranquility; it is the absence of disorder involvitg breaches of local
significance in contradistinction to national unheavals, such as revolution, civil strife war
affecting the security of the State; (2) there must be proximate and reasonable’nexus
between the speech and the public order; (3) 8:3 as it now stand, does not establish in
most of the ‘cases comprehended, by it any such, nexus, (4) there is a conflict of
decision on the question’ofse verability in the context of an offending, proviision the
language ‘whereof its wide enough to cover restrictions both within and without the limits
of constitutionally permissible legislation; one view is that if cannot be split up if there is
possibility of its being applied for purpase not sanctioned by the Constitutionand the
other view is that such a provision is valid if it is se\ierable in ‘its application to an object
which is clearly demarcated from other objector objects failing outside the limits, of
constitutionally permissible legislation;and (5) the provisions of the section are so
inextricably, mixed up that it is not possible to apply, the doctrine of severability so as to
enable us to affirm the validity ofci part and,reject the rest.
Prem Chand v. Union of India reported in AIG1981SC613:(1981 Cd. J.L.5). In the above
case it was held thatany Police apprehension is not enough for passing order of
extemment some ground or other is not adequate. There must be clearan present
danger based upon credible material which makes the movements and acts of person in
question alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence.
Reference may also be made to Gulam Abbas’s case in AIR 1981SC2198:(1981 Cri. LJ.
1835). In this aforesaid, decision Supreme Court observed: object of8.144 is to preserve
publicpeace and tranquility and as such attempt should be made’to, regulate the rights
instead of prohibiting the right to hold procession totally.
Badshah Restaurant, Secunderabaci
Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad*
The petitioner herein is a restaurant and: represented by its proprietor in these
proceedings. The proprietor of the petitioner claims very rich experience in running hotel
business. The respondent issued on 15.11.1994 ‘No Objection’ letter addressed lothe
Chief Medical Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, for establishment of
‘Badhshah Restaurant. In the same manner the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad
has also issued. ‘No Objection letter on 28.11.1994. Based upon thesaid.letterthe
petitioner is stated to have made huge investment in renovating the. premises. by
making some additions and alterations to the existing premises. The petitioner is stated
to have made a installations, furniture and fixtures for running of a. standard Bar and
Restaurant with Orchestra, Singing and Dancing. The respondent is stated to have
granted amusement licence dated 10.06.1994 valid up to 31.12.1994. The petitioner
there/after applied for renewal of amusemem licence on 29.12.1994 by paying the
required fee. The respondent through proceedings dated 18.05.1995 refused renewarof
amusementricenc.e without any valid: reasons, according to tbe petitioner. As such the
petitioner filed W.P. No. .11564/95.agai.nst the respondent and the same were allowed
by this Court. .
I am ofthe considered opinion that no person has any right under the provisions of the
Act and the Rules framed thereunder to get amusement license as a mater of right. No
such right is conferred upon any individual and similarly no such tatutory duty is
imposed upon the Commissioner of Police to grant the amusement licence as and when
asked for by an interestedperson It is true, the statutory power conferred upon the
Commissioner of Police is required to be exercised fairly and reasonably. Every person
who applies for grant of amus.ement licence, undoubtedly has5 a right for consideration
of his application in accordance with law arid provisions of the Act and the Rules framed
thereunder. He is required to take the relevantfact.ors into consideration and eschew
the irrelevant facts. An important aspect that was not taken into consideration by this
Court in the earlier decisions is that. there is no provision for renewal of amusement
licence. Every time concerned. Individual has to apply of afresh for grant of the .Iicence
*1998 Cr.LJ. 4121 (AP.)
and every time such requests afresh and in accodance with law. There is no provision
for granting renewal, as in the case of various other enactments.
It is in the context that a person’ has to file an application ‘seeking amusement licence
and there isno provision forrenewal ofthelicence, acquires significance. I am ofthe
considered opinion that the applicant has no- right to insist that he should be given an
opportunity to explain his case as to why the licence should be granted in his favour.
The decision rejecting application and refusing to grant amusementlicence, therefore,
cannot be said to be in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The principles
of naturcd justice requiring an opportunity of being heard has no application. The
principle that the decision is required to be fair and reasonable would undoubtedly apply
even in case of rejection. Themfore, It is not possible to agree with the submissionmade
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is violative of the
principles of natural Justice. The petitioner is not doing any business in organising
Indian Classical dance. His business is running Restaurant. By the, impugned- order
the business and trade of the petitioner is in noway ac:tversely effected. Therefore, the
question of infringement of the fundamental right ‘guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of
the Constitution of India does not arise.
Irresponsible pleadings in a given case itself may disentitle the party for the relief and
the Court would be well withlnits Iimits to refuse relief to such persons, who do not show
their respect to the judicial process. Viewed in such background I do not find and
justification whatsoever on the part of the petitioner to characterize the Commissioner of
Police as a dictator. The action of an authority in a given case would be unfair and
unreasonable or even arbitrary. Butevery authority passing such arbitrary order
cannotbe equated to that ora dictator.
G. Subas Reddy vs State of A.P. andanother*
In this case the Andhra Pmdesh High Court, while examining the scope of judicial
review in the deaiing of applications for providing police protection by the competent
authority or state government issued directions for such exercise.
There can be no pick and choo$e in providing security to any penson and the only thing
that will guide making such provisions will be the perception of threat and the duty of the
Govt. of the State to protectthe life and properties, of individuals. High Court’s power
under Article 226 shall evidently extends to judicial review of the order passed by the
competent authority, including the State Government upon the application for providing
police security of any such individiual or individuals and the Court; with all the self
imposed restriction upon it power of judicial review, shall exal11inewhether the
application has been rightly rejected and necessary suitable directions may issue.
Thus in an application for providing police security to individual the following directions
are given by the High Cburt:-
(1) The State has duty to provide necessary security to the” constitutional
functionaries and if there is any expense upon such security, the Govt. can do so
out of the funds of the exchequer of the State;
(2) The Govt has a duty to protect the properties of the State including the union and
the other State Govt. and any expenses for security of the properties of the State
can legitimately be borne out of the State’s exchequer;
(3) Depending upon the threat perception in respect of such statutory functionaries
which are discharging duties on behalf of the State the Govt. may take policy
decision and provides security to such personnel to such extent as decided’ by
the Govt.and expenses for the same can legitimately be borne by the. State
*1997Cr.L.J. 1296 (AP.)
(4) The State has a duty to maintain peace to ensure that the public order is not
threatonedand ta protect the life and liberty of all persons living within the territory
of the State as well as has a duty to enforce effectively such measures as law
have permitted for preventing any unlawful activityafany persens and the State:
(5) Individual er individuals, who apprehend threat to peace and to his ertheir lives
can appraach the competent authority at the first instance at the District level and
make applicatien far deployment afspecial force for maintaining peace andf6r
protection ef his ar their lives and liberty. On such _aplicatian befng. made, the
competent autharity shall be duty beund to pramptly made suitable orders
without any delay.
(6) Any persen or persons “who, hewever, have apprehension er threat to their life
or his er her property from the Gevt. Its servants or agents, in exce\Jtianal cases,
can approach the Court for suitable orders and the caurt of the first instance, will
be, the Ceurt of the Magistrate, who may issue; necessary directians for bands to
be executed .
(7) Applicant, incase his applications have been refused” can approach this Court
seeking judi_ial review of the order of the CeLJrt with all censtraints self imposed
and within the beunds ef – rules of judicial review may examine individual cases
strictly in accerdance with law.
Prof. Sumer Chand vs Union of India and others.
In this case the question before the Supreme Court was that whether the period of
limitation for filing a suit for malicious prosecution against a member of the Delhi police
is governed by the provisions of Sec. 140 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 or by Article 74 of
the Limitation Act,1963. .
Where a suit for malicious prosecution against two police officers alleging that one
police officer who was in charge of police post had registered a false, vexatious and
malicious report against a person and another officer who was Station House Officer
had filed the challan in the Court against him and other accused on the basis of the said
report was filed after expiry of three months from acts complained of, it was barred by
limitation. The acts thus alleged were done under the colour of office of the said officers
and would fall within the ambit of S.140(1) of Delhi Police Act because it was the duty of
the said first officer being in charge of Police Post to record the report and so also it was
the duty of another officer to fiIe the challan in court. The acts complained of were,
therefore done under the colour of office of the said officers and fell within the ambit of
Section 140(1) of the Act. In such a case, the period of limitation for institution of the suit
would be that prescribed in Section 140 and not the period prescribed in Art. 74 of the
Limitation Act. The Limitation Act is an enactment which consolidates and amends the
law for the limitation of suits and other proceedings connected therewith. It is a law
which applies generally to all suits and proceedings. It is therefore, in the nature of a
general enactment governing the law of limitation. The Delhi Police Act has been
enacted for the purpose of amending and consolidating the law relating to regulation of
police in the Union Territory of Delhi. The Act is a special enactment in respect of
matters referred to therein, Section140 of the Act imposes certain restrictions and
limitations in the matter of institution of suits and prosecutions against police officers in
respect of acts done by a police officer under colour of duty or authority or in excess of
such duty or authority. Since the Act is a special law which
*1993. Cr.L.J. 3531
prescribes a period of limitation different from the period prescribed in the Schedule to
the Limitation Act for suits against persons governed by the Act in relation to matters
covered by Section 140, by virtue of S.29(2) of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation
prescribed by S.140 of the Act would be the period of limitation prescribed for such suits
and not the period prescribed in the Schedule to the Limitation Act.
S.P. Vaithianathan vs K. Shanmuganathan*
Complainant made complaint to higher Police Official regarding involvement of a
particular Police Officer in illegal distiliation. The aggrieved Police Officer through
summons called the complainant in his office and tortured him. No action was taken by
senior official against this ill treatment of the complainant. He then filed Criminal
Complaint under Section 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 506 Part II and 307 of the IPC. The
learned CJM issued process, to this an objection was raised that the prosecution was
barred by limitation in view of the provision in Sec. 53 of the T.N. District Police Act,
1869. High Court upheld this contention and quashed the order by which process was
The Supreme Court reversing the judgement of Madras High Court.
It must be realised that in order to avail of the benefit of Sec. 53 of the Act, the
respondent must show that he acted ‘under’ the Act or any other law. Merely because
the appellant was called through a summons issued under law, the conduct of beating
and torturing the appellant on the latter appearing in obedience to the summons cannot
establish any nexus between the official act of issuance of summons and the action of
the respondent on the appearance of the appellant. Unless a relationship is established
between the provision of law ‘under’ which the respondent purports to act and the
misdemeanour complained of the provision of Sec. 53 will not be attracted. .
*1994 Cr.L.J. 2265
Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan vs State of Tamil Nadu & another*
The Madras Race Club {the club) is an Association registered as a company withllimited
liability under the Companies Act, 1956. The club was formed in the year 1896 by taking
over the assets and liabilities of the erstwhile unincorporated club known as Madras
Race Club. According to its Memorandum and Articles of Association, the principal
object of the club is to carry on the business of a race club in the running, of horse
races. The Club is one of the five “Turf Authorities of India”, the other four being the
Royal Calcutta Turf Club, the Royal Western India Turf Club Limited, the BangaloreTurf
Club Limited and the Hyderabad Race Club. Race meetings are held in the club’s own
racecourse at Madras and at Uthagamandalam (Ooty) for which bets are made inside
the race course premises. While horse races are continuing in the rest of the country,
the Tamil Nadu Legislature, as back, as 1949, enacted law by which horse racing was
brought within the definition of “gaming”, the said law, however, was not enforced till
1975, when it was challenged by the club by way of a writ petition before the Madras
High Court. The writ petition was dismissed, by the High Court.
1. The horse-racing is a sport which primarily depends on the special ability acquired
by training. It is the speed and stamina of the horse, acquired by training, which
matters, Jockeys are experts in the art of riding. Between two equally fast horses,
a better trained jockey can touch the winning-post. Thus the horse-racing, is a
game where the winning depends substantially and preponderantly on skill.
2. In a handicap race the competitors are given advantages or disadvantages of
weight, distance, time etc. in an attempt to equalize their chances of winning, but
that is not the classic concept of horse-racing, according to which the best horse
should win. The very concept of handicap race goes to show that there is no
element of chance in the regular horse-racing. It is a game of skill. Even in a
handicap race-despite the assignment of imposts – the skill dominates. In any case
an occasional handicap
*1996 Cr.L.J. 1635
race in a race-club cannot change the natural horse-racing from a game of skill to
that of chance.
3. Gaming is the act or practice of gambling on a game of chance. It is staking on
chance where chance is the controlling factor. ‘Gaming’ in the two Acts would,
therefore, mean wagering or betting on games of chance It would not include
games of skill like horse-racing’. In any case, S. 49 of the Police Act and S: 11 of
the Gaming Act specifically save the games of mere skill from the penal provisions
of the two Acts. Therefore, wagering or betting on horse-racing – a game of skill –
does not come within the definition of ‘gaming’ under the two Acts. Even if there is
wagering or betting with the club it is on a game of mere skill and as such it would
not be ‘gaming’, under the two Acts.
4. Horse racing is neither ‘gaming’ nor “gambling” as defined and envisaged under
the two Acts read with the 1974 Act and the penal provisions of these Acts are: not
applicable to the horse racing which is a game of skill. Decision of Madras H.C.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Fight for Justice

A crusaders blog for inspiring thought.

Stand up for your rights

Gender biased laws

MyNation Foundation - News

News Articles from MyNation, india - News you can use

498afighthard's Blog

Raising Awareness About Gender Biased Laws and its misuse In India

The Blog

The latest news on and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: