9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the investigation of an offence is considered complete under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) without the reports of experts such as the Chemical Examiner, Serologist, Ballistic Expert, or Finger Print Expert. 2. Whether a charge-sheet submitted without these expert reports qualifies as a police report under Section 190(1)(b) of the CrPC, enabling the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Completeness of Investigation under Section 173(2) CrPC The core issue in the judgment is whether an investigation is deemed complete in terms of Section 173(2) of the CrPC if the investigating police officer has not yet received the reports from experts like the Chemical Examiner, Serologist, Ballistic Expert, or Finger Print Expert. The court concluded that the investigation is considered complete once the police officer has collected all evidence and facts detailed in Section 173(2) and is satisfied that a case can be initiated against the accused. The court emphasized that the collection of evidence does not necessarily mean that the investigating officer must have received the expert reports. The investigation is deemed complete when the material is dispatched for expert opinion, and the expert is cited as a witness. Issue 2: Qualification of Charge-Sheet as a Police Report The second issue is whether a charge-sheet without the expert reports qualifies as a police report under Section 190(1)(b) of the CrPC, enabling the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence. The court held that a police report in terms of Section 173(2) does not need to include the expert reports for the investigation to be considered complete. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Tara Singh v. The State, which established that a report is complete if it sets forth the names of the parties, the nature of the information, and the names of persons acquainted with the circumstances of the case. The court also noted that the addition of sub-section (5) to Section 173 in the new Code did not change the concept of a 'police report' as envisaged in the unamended Code. Additional Observations: - The court clarified that the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the CrPC ensures that an accused is not detained for more than sixty days during the investigation. If the investigation is not completed within this period, the Magistrate must release the accused on bail. - The court also noted that if the Magistrate can legally take cognizance of the offence within sixty days, he can remand the accused for trial under Section 309 of the CrPC. - The court emphasized that the discretion to permit the prosecution to adduce additional evidence, including expert reports, lies with the court. If the court allows such evidence, a copy must be furnished to the accused. Conclusion: The court dismissed Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 5812-M and 6077-M of 1977 and 169-M and 293-M of 1978, denying the bail requested by the petitioners. However, the court allowed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4766-M of 1977 filed by the State, setting aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and ordering the accused-respondents to surrender to custody forthwith. Separate Judgments: All three judges, D.S. Tewatia, Bhupinder Singh Dhillon, and Gurnam Singh, agreed on the judgment, delivering a common judgment for all five petitions.
|
