Supreme Court says cops must act as filters, should not prosecute citizens without a reasonable prospect of conviction

Source: Times of India

Disapproving the tendency of filing chargesheets and framing of charges in criminal cases where prima facie no case is made out, Supreme Court has said this has resulted in clogging of the judicial system, and has asked police and trial courts to act as filters, ensuring that only cases with a strong suspicion proceed to the trial stage. To read more please go to the following link:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-file-charges-only-if-theres-reasonable-conviction-chance/articleshow/125774536.cms

he protection enjoyed by a woman under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not available in proceedings related to Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) as per Delhi high Court

Source: Times of India

The protection enjoyed by a woman under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not available in proceedings related to Foreign Exchange Management Act (Fema), which is governed by civil law, Delhi high court has ruled. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a writ petition filed by a 53-year-old Canadian citizen challenging ED summons issued under Fema Section 37 for recording of her statement, rejecting the contention that safeguards guaranteed to women under CrPC applied to such summons.

To read more please go to the following link:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/crpc-cover-for-women-cant-be-invoked-in-fema-case-delhi-hc/articleshow/125730860.cms

Supreme Court relaxes rules for advance disclosure of arrest reasons (especially in offences like hit-and-run)

Source: Times of India

Carving out an important exception to a constitutional mandate that an accused must be informed in advance in writing about grounds of his arrest, Supreme Court Thursday that said in crimes like hit-and-run cases, police can inform him about grounds of arrest later but at least two hours prior to his production before a magistrate.  To read more please go to the following link:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-relaxes-rule-on-advance-disclosure-of-arrest-reasons/articleshow/125147098.cms 

Why Supreme Court Ordered Retrospective Application Of Bail Provision Under BNSS

 Source: ABP - MSN

The Supreme Court in a recent development said that the that Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on July 1, will apply retrospectively. The Section 479 of BNSS deals with the release of undertrial prisoners on bail. It means that the provision will apply to all undertrials in cases was registered before July 1, 2024. To read more please go to the following link:

https://www.msn.com/en-in/autos/photos/why-supreme-court-ordered-retrospective-application-of-bail-provision-under-bnss/ar-AA1pqFso

BNSS vs CrPC: CrPC to apply to pending trial/investigation registered before Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita came into force: Rajasthan High Court

 Source: SCC online

The Court stated that “if an FIR is registered prior to 01-07-2023 under the CrPC, it would amount to a pending enquiry/investigation within the meaning of Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS.”...

To read more, please go to the following link:

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/07/18/bnss-vs-crpc-crpc-to-apply-to-pending-trial-investigation-registered-before-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-came-into-force-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times/

 

Mentioning IPC, CrPC, Evidence Act Will Now Be Interpreted As Referring To New Criminal Laws:

The Ministry of Law and Justice announced on Tuesday that any reference to the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), or the Evidence Act in any statute, ordinance, or regulation will now refer to the newly implemented criminal justice laws. (Source: The Times Now - MSN). To read more, please go to the following link:

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/India/mentioning-ipc-crpc-evidence-act-will-now-be-interpreted-as-referring-to-new-criminal-laws/ar-BB1q6PRR?ocid=BingNewsSerp

First reference to new criminal law by Delhi HC in trademark infringement case

To read more about the first reference to new criminal law (Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita) by Delhi HC in trademark infringement case, please go to the following link (Source: The New Indian Express):

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/in-a-first-delhi-hc-refers-to-new-criminal-law-in-trademark-infringement-case-9433820/ 

Judgment under Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

 Probably the first judgment under Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

To read the full judgment, please go to the following link:

https://rb.gy/q1lzsc 

Immovable assets can’t be attached during probe: SC

Source: Hindustan Times dated 25.09.2019

The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that police or other law-enforcement agencies have no authority under the code of criminal procedure (CrPc) to seize any immovable property on the suspicion that it had been purchased or set up with the proceeds of an illegal transaction or criminal activity.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi held conferring such powers to police officers would have “serious consequences for the citizens.”

The bench said: “In case and if we allow the police officer to ‘seize’ immovable property on a mere ‘suspicion of the commission of any offence’, it would mean and imply giving a drastic and extreme power to dispossess etc. to the police officer on a mere conjecture and surmise, that is, on suspicion, which has hitherto not been exercised.”

The apex court upheld the Bombay high court ruling that immovable property cannot be seized by the police during the course of investigation.

According to Section 102 of the CrPC: “Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence…”

The HC had interpreted the term immovable property under this section as houses, office or lands.

The SC said that although the section postulates seizure of property, it does not include immovable property.

“Language of Section 102 of the Code does not support the interpretation that the police officer has the power to dispossess a person in occupation and take possession of an immovable property in order to seize it. In the absence of the Legislature conferring this express or implied power under Section 102 of the Code to the police officer, we would hesitate and not hold that this power should be inferred and is implicit in the power to effect seizure,” held the court.

The law, however, does not bar or prohibit the police officer from seizing documents/papers of title relating to immovable property, as it is distinct and different from seizure of immovable property. “Disputes and matters relating to the physical and legal possession and title of the property must be adjudicated upon by a Civil Court,” held the court.

SC: Cops can’t seize immovable property in criminal case probe

Source: Times of India dated 25.09.2019

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that police cannot attach immovable properties of an accused during investigation in a criminal case as seizure of such property would not facilitate probe though collection of evidence or material to be produced during trial.

Enumerating how empowering police to attach immovable property may lead to an absolutely chaotic situation, a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna said if there is a physical fight between the landlord and tenant over rented premises, police would be entitled to seize the property making a mockery of the rent laws.

“The power of a police officer under CrPC Section 102 to seize any property would not include the power to attach, seize and seal an immovable property,” the bench said. The court, however, said this would not bar or prohibit police from seizing documents/ papers of title relating to immovable property.

“Section 102 of CrPC empowers a police officer to seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen. Theft can take place only of movable property and not of immovable property. In my view, the word ‘seized’ has been used in the sense of taking actual physical custody of the property,” Justice Gupta said in his separate but concurrent judgment.

He also stated that sub-section 3 of Section 102 provides that where it is difficult to conveniently transport the property to the court or there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of the property, the property can be given to any person on his executing a bond. “This per se indicates that the property must be capable of production in court and of being kept inside some accommodation. This obviously cannot be done with immovable property,” he said.

Accused can be ordered to give voice sample: SC

Source: Times of India dated 03.08.2019

New Delhi: In a landmark ruling filling more than a century old vacuum in the CrPC, the apex court on Friday ruled that a person can be compelled to give voice sample for crime investigation and it will not violate his fundamental right against self-incrimination guaranteed under Article 20 of the Constitution, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra.

A bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna used the SC’s discretionary power conferred under Article 142 for the purpose of “doing complete justice” to empower magistrates to direct an accused to provide his voice sample, given the uniqueness of an individual’s voice.

Technology has widened scope of med exam of accused: CJI

An SC bench of Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Desai had on December 7, 2012, returned a split verdict on whether a magistrate, without specific provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1882, which was overhauled in 1973, could be empowered by the SC to direct an accused to provide her/his voice sample to police. Nearly seven years later, the bench headed by CJI Gogoi said, “We unhesitatingly take the view that until explicit provisions are engrafted in the CrPC by Parliament, a judicial magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime.”

Writing the unanimous judgment for the three-judge bench, the CJI said, “Such power has to be conferred on a magistrate by a process of judicial interpretation and in exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court under Article142 of the Constitution.”

The case related to an FIR lodged on December 7, 2009, by the electronics cell of Sadar Bazar police station in Saharanpur of UP alleging that one Dhoom Singh, with his aide Ritesh Sinha, was collecting money from people on the promise of jobs in the police department. The police seized Singh’s mobile phone.

The investigating officer wanted to verify whether conversations recorded in the mobile phone were between Singh and Sinha. For this purpose, the IO moved the chief judicial magistrate (CJM) to get Sinha’s voice samples. The CJM ordered Sinha to give his voice sample. The Allahabad HC upheld the CJM’s order. But on Sinha’s appeal, the SC in December 2012 returned a split verdict because of the absence of any provision in the CrPC empowering a magistrate to order a person to provide his voice sample.

CJI Gogoi said medical examination of an accused was getting wider meaning with the advancement of technology, and cited amendments carried out in the CrPC which allowed medical examination of the accused and the mandate to a person to provide handwriting specimen for investigation of a crime.

Courts can try a person not booked by police, rules Bombay High Court

Source: The Times of India dated 24.02.2014

Courts can try a person not booked by police, rules HC

Shibu Thomas TNN 

Mumbai: A trial court can use powers under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to initiate criminal proceedings against a person who may not have been booked by police in a case, the Bombay high court has said. Justice Revati Dere ruled that even if a person is not named as an accused in the police chargesheet, a court can launch prosecution against him at any stage of the trial. But it added that this power has to be used sparingly. The court’s order comes as a relief to Malabar Hill resident Mani Narayan in a 17-year-old case of assault and outraging her modesty (see box). 

    “It is well settled that once amagistrate takes cognizance of an offence, he can proceed against those offenders also who have not been sent up by the police and that absence of chargesheet is not a bar. The power of Section 319 of CrPC is not controlled by the result of investigation,” said Justice Dere. The court set aside as “premature” a sessions court order which while accepting that such powers were available to the magistrate had held that since it was an old case it would amount to abuse of the process of law. 

    The HC held that the delay in the case was not Narayan;s fault, but due to the fact that the accused were absconding for over a decade.

HOPE FOR COMPLAINANT AFTER 16 YRS I n 1997, Mani Narayan alleged that watchmen of her Malabar Hill building obstructed her on the instructions of her society’s secretary, assaulted her and outraged her modesty. The FIR was lodged against two watchmen. Narayan, however, claimed that the police had not recorded her complaint properly and had not named as accused the secretary and other watchmen. In 1998, she moved a magistrate’s court to order further investigations. The two absconding accused were arrested only in 2008. In 2011, the magistrate rejected her plea. The sessions court too rejected her application and held that the trial court’s powers were not tenable as the case was old. Narayan then moved the HC

HC: Apply Section 319 sparingly 
    Merely on the ground that the case is an old one cannot justify holding that invoking of Section 319 of the CrPC will amount to abuse of the process of the law,” said the judge. 

    The HC however cautioned that the power under section 319 had to be used properly and only when the court was convinced that there was enough material available to convict the accused. “The court has to use the said power sparingly and primarily to advance the cause of criminal justice and not as a tool at the hands of the court to cause harassment to persons who are not involved in the commission of the crime,” said the judge adding that the provision should be invoked when from the evidence it appears that a person who has not been named by the police had committed the offence. The court said that the provision should be used “only on the existence of compelling reasons and should not be exercised where the possibilities of the summoned persons, being convicted are remote”. 

    Under Section 319, the court can initiate prosecution of a person who is not booked but against whom there is evidence that he has committed the crime. The court can summon such a person, order his arrest or detain him for the purpose of inquiry or trial.