NDPS:- TRIAL WILL NOT BE VITIATED ON THE GROUND THAT COMPLAINANT AND INVESTIGATING OFFICER IS SAME- CONSTITUTIONAL BENCH JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT

The five judges  constitutional bench of Supreme Court  in case of Mukesh Singh vs State ( NCB Delhi) decided on 31/8/2020 settled the issue by overruling the judgment of court in case of Mohan Lal vs State of Punjab in 2018 where it said that trial of NDPS case stand vitiated if complainant and Investigating officer is the same person.

Supreme court observed:-

—I. THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THIS COURT IN THE CASES OF BHAGWAN SINGH V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (1976) 1 SCC 15; MEGHA SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA (1996) 11 SCC 709; AND STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NIB, TAMIL NADU V. RAJANGAM (2010) 15 SCC 369

—    AND THE ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED BY THIS COURT ON THE GROUND THAT AS THE INFORMANT AND THE INVESTIGATOR WAS THE SAME, IT HAS VITIATED THE TRIAL AND THE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO ACQUITTAL ARE TO BE TREATED TO BE CONFINED TO THEIR OWN FACTS.

—IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IN THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, THIS COURT LAID DOWN ANY GENERAL PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT IN EACH AND EVERY CASE WHERE THE INFORMANT IS THE INVESTIGATOR THERE IS A BIAS CAUSED TO THE ACCUSED AND THE ENTIRE PROSECUTION CASE IS TO BE DISBELIEVED AND THE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO ACQUITTAL;

—II. IN A CASE WHERE THE INFORMANT HIMSELF IS THE INVESTIGATOR, BY THAT ITSELF CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE INVESTIGATION IS VITIATED ON THE GROUND OF BIAS OR THE LIKE FACTOR. THE QUESTION OF BIAS OR PREJUDICE WOULD DEPEND UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE.

—THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE THE INFORMANT IS THE INVESTIGATOR, BY THAT ITSELF THE INVESTIGATION WOULD NOT SUFFER THE VICE OF UNFAIRNESS OR BIAS AND THEREFORE ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT INFORMANT IS THE INVESTIGATOR, THE ACCUSED IS NOT ENTITLED TO ACQUITTAL. THE MATTER HAS TO BE DECIDED ON A CASE TO CASE BASIS.

—A CONTRARY DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF MOHAN LAL V. STATE OF PUNJAB (2018) 17 SCC 627 AND ANY OTHER DECISION TAKING A CONTRARY VIEW THAT THE INFORMANT CANNOT BE THE INVESTIGATOR AND IN SUCH A CASE THE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO ACQUITTAL ARE NOT GOOD LAW AND THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY OVERRULED

Whether accused can ask further investigation after submission of charge-sheet or final report?

In case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya vs State of Gujrat , Crl Appeal 478-479 of 2017 decided on 16/10/2019 a three judges bench of supreme court held that judicial magistrate has power to order further investigation even after taking cognizance of the offence  but before framing of charges.

The Supreme Court also held that even the accused has a right to file protest petition if he is not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the police.

With this Judgment Supreme Court overruled the settled position of law that post cognizance Magistrate has no power to order further investigation held in case of Devarapally Lakshminarayana Reddy vs V Narayana Reddy and others (1976) 3 SCC 252.

Whether Supreme Court order of extending the Limitation Period also extends the time limit for filling Charge -Sheet?

•  Supreme Court in its order passed suo-mot on 23-03-20 extended the time limit for filling of various applications, appeals etc in Courts due to prevailing covid-19 situation.
• The confusion arose when various High Courts starts giving contradictory orders on extension of time for filling charge-sheet as given in section 167 Cr.P.C. interpreting that the order of Supreme Court also extends the time for filling charge sheet beyond the period of 90 or 60 days as the case may be and accused has no right to be released on default bail because of the extending the period by Supreme Court.
• In case of Kasi vs State through inspector of police Madurai Crl. Appeal No. 452/2020 decided on 19 June 2020 Supreme Court clarified the position and held that 
• " neither this court in its order dated 23-03-20 can be held to have eclipsed the  time prescribed under section 167(2) Cr.P.C. nor the restriction which have been imposed during the lock down by the government shall operate as any restriction on the rights of the accused as protected by section 167(2) cr.p.c regarding his right to be released on default bail"
• So with the above clarification by the Supreme Court it become clear that there is no extension of time for filling charge-sheet it remains as it is in section 167 Cr.P.C. i.e.90/60 days as the case may be  and if not filled within the time period accused has a right to be released on default bail.

Ownership of Motor Vehicle- Legal Implications of not transferring R.C. of vehicle

Most of us who are having motor vehicle at one point of time use to sell our vehicle and it is generally done by executing a sale deed and get it registered by Notary Advocate and consequently we deliver the possession of vehicle to buyer along with the Registration certificate and other documents. Generally we don't bother about the transfer of vehicle's registration certificate and some times it comes with heavy cost.

In case the vehicle met with an accident or involved in some other case and the R .C. of the vehicle is not transferred yet. you will be considered as owner of the vehicle for all purposes.

The Supreme Court in its Judgement in Civil Appeal 2632 of 2020 decided on 18 June 20 , Surendra kumar Bhilawe vs New India Insurance Company Limited  held  that till the time ownership is not transferred by entering the name of new owner in registration certificate, the person on whose name the registration certificate is considered as owner of the vehicle for all purposes.

GUIDELINES FOR INVESTIGATING UNNATURAL DEATH CASEs UNDER SECTION 174 Cr.P.C.

Guidelines for investigation of Unnatural Death cases

It is seen as a matter of practice that after the investigation of U.D. cases registered under section 174 of Cr.P.C. police after conducting the investigation submits the report to the magistrate who is devoid of any power to accept or reject the police report further the executive magistrate is not empowered by the Cr.P.C. to grant any relief to the informant who wants to proceeds against the conclusion/ report of the police. In most of the cases the family member even do not know the result of investigation of U. D cases.  It is pertinent to note that the provisions are made in Cr.P.C. where inquest is to be conducted by the Ex. Magistrate on the information given by police regarding unnatural death. The proceeding conducted by the magistrate is in addition to the inquest conducted by the police and Ex. Magistrate is supposed to report its finding to the police.

The Madras High Court in case of Manohari and others vs DSP Shivgangai Crl. OP 15515 and 11764 decided on 17/09/2018 issued following guidelines for investigating U.D.cases

 a) The Police on receipt of an information about the suspicious death shall registered an F.I.R under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter he can proceed to the scene of occurrence and prepare an Inquest Report.

b) When a Police Officer receives an information to the effect that the deceased is lying in a serious condition, he can rush to the scene of occurrence, in order to see if he can save the victim and if in case the victim does not survive he can proceed to prepare the Inquest Report in accordance with Section 174(1) of Cr.P.C, and thereafter register an F.I.R under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The Inquest Report has to describe the wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injuries as are found on the dead body and state in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument [if any], such marks appear to have been inflicted.

c)The Police Officer shall also prepare a Rough Sketch of the place of occurrence.

d)The Inquest Report and the Rough Sketch shall be prepared in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighborhood.

e) The object of the Inquest Proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under unnatural circumstances or an unnatural death and if so, what is the cause of death. The Inquest Report need not contain details such as how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted and these facts are not within the scope of Inquest Proceedings and they fall within the scope of the investigation to be conducted by the Police.

f)immediately after the preparation of the Inquest Report in accordance with Section 174(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, the Police shall submit the same to the Executive Magistrate under Section 174(2) in order to enable the Executive Magistrate to hold an independent inquest as contemplated under Section 174(4) of Criminal Procedure Code.

g) The Executive Magistrate on completion of the inquest shall submit a report to the Police and such report shall form part of the investigation conducted by the Police and the Police shall collect details from such report and conduct the investigation accordingly.

h) The power of the Police to investigate is in no way stopped or curtailed or interfered with by the inquest held by the Executive Magistrate and the freedom of the Police to proceed with the investigation will be left untouched.

i)The Police on the conclusion of the investigation shall file a Final Report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C only before the jurisdictional Magistrate and not before the Executive Magistrate. This will apply, in both cases, whether the Final Report is a positive report or is a Closure Report.

j) If in case the Police proceeds to file a Closure Report, the victim shall be entitled to be served with a R.C.S notice in order to enable him to file a protest Petition before the concerned Magistrate.

k) On such protest Petition being filed, the concerned Judicial Magistrate shall act in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi .Vs. Irshad Ali, reported in [2013 (5) SCC 762].

PROCEDURE FOR PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES FROM SECTION 172 TO 188 I.P.C.

Section 195 of Cr.P.C. bars Court to take cognizance of offences from section 172 to 188 IPC except on the complaint in writing made by the public servant whose order is disobeyed or any other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

Further section 340 Cr.P.C. provides special procedure for prosecution of offences  of section 172 to section 188 of I.P.C and provides that on the basis of complaint filed by the public servant whose order is disobeyed the jurisdictional magistrate takes cognizance in section 343 and proceeds as the case if is instituted on police report.

Since offence of section 188 IPC is cognizable the police has authority to arrest the person under section 41 of the Cr.P.C. 

The confusion arises on power of police to register the FIR .  Though there are some conflicting views of High Court but the view expressed by the Madras High Court in case of Jeevanandam  vs State  represented by Police Inspector , Cri. O.P. number1356/2018 decided on 20 September 2018 Madras High Court is more convincing and is according to the provisions of Cr.P.C.

The  High Court issued following direction to be followed in case of prosecution of offences of section 188 IPC

a)A Police Officer cannot register an FIR for any of the offences falling under Section 172 to 188 of IPC.

b)A Police Officer by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 41 of Cr.P.C will have the authority to take action under Section 41 of Cr.P.C., when a cognizable offence under Section 188 IPC is committed in his presence or where such action is required, to prevent such person from committing an offence under Section 188 of IPC.

c)The role of the Police Officer will be confined only to the preventive action as stipulated under Section 41 of Cr.P.C and immediately thereafter, he has to inform about the same to the public servant concerned/authorised, to enable such public servant to give a complaint in writing before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who shall take cognizance of such complaint on being prima facie satisfied with the requirements of Section 188 of IPC.

d)In order to attract the provisions of Section 188 of IPC, the written complaint of the public servant concerned should reflect the following ingredients namely;

i) that there must be an order promulgated by the public servant;

ii) that such public servant is lawfully empowered to promulgate it;

iii)that the person with knowledge of such order and being directed by such order to abstain from doing certain act or to take certain order with certain property in his possession and under his management, has disobeyed; and

iv)that such disobedience causes or tends to cause;

(a) obstruction,annoyance or risk of it to any person lawfully employed; or

(b) danger to human life, health or safety; or

(c) a riot or affray.

e)The promulgation issued under Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861, must satisfy the test of reasonableness and can only be in the nature of a regulatory power and not a blanket power to trifle any democratic dissent of the citizens by the Police.

f)The promulgation through which, the order is made known must be by something done openly and in public and private information will not be a promulgation. The order must be notified or published by beat of drum or in a Gazette or published in a newspaper with a wide circulation.

g)No Judicial Magistrate should take cognizance of a Final Report when it reflects an offence under Section 172 to 188 of IPC. 

An FIR or a Final Report will not become void-ab-initio insofar as offences other than Section 172 to 188 of IPC and a Final Report can be taken cognizance by the Magistrate insofar as offences not covered under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.

h)The Director General of Police, Chennai and Inspector General of the various Zones are directed to immediately formulate a process by specifically empowering public servants dealing with for an offence under Section 188 of IPC to ensure that there is no delay in filing a written complaint by the public servants concerned under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.

ATTACK ON DOCTORS, HEALTHCARE WORKERS TO BE COGNIZABLE AND NON-BAILABLE OFFENCE UNDER EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT 1897 AS AMENDED BY EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 2020

The Central government promulgated Epidemic Diseases Act amendment ordinance 2020 to amend the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897 to make attacks on doctors and healthcare workers a cognizable and non-bailable offence.

Whoever commits or abets the commitment of violence against health care worker, shall be punished with imprisonment ranging from 3 months to 5 years, and penalty ranging from Rs 50,000 to 2 lakh.

In case of a very serious attack, the imprisonment may be for a minimum period of 6 months and maximum of 7 years, with penalty ranging from Rs 1 lakh to 5 lakh.

As per the Ordinance, investigation into the incidents of attacks on doctors and healthcare workers has to be conducted by police officer not below the rank of inspector and shall be completed within 30 days from the date of registration of FIR.

Trial of these cases shall also be conducted in a time-bound manner, and endeavors to be made to decide within one year.

The Ordinance also provides that the court shall presume that such person has committed such offence, unless the contrary is proved.

The Ordinance states that in case of damage to vehicles or clinics of doctors or healthcare workers, the perpetrators would have to pay double the market cost of the damaged asset as compensation.

Upon failure to pay the compensation awarded, such amount shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890