1984 (4) TMI 319 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the first charge-sheet filed within the 90-day period.
2. Interpretation of "case" and "offence" under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).
3. Completion of investigation under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.
4. Right to bail under Proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
5. Jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the First Charge-Sheet Filed Within the 90-Day Period:
The revision petitioners contended that the first charge-sheet filed on 7.2.1984 was invalid as the investigation was incomplete. They argued that the Code does not allow for piecemeal investigation and that a valid charge-sheet could only be laid after the completion of the investigation of all offences involved in the case. The prosecution, however, argued that the investigation was complete before the first charge-sheet was filed, despite an erroneous statement in the charge-sheet indicating ongoing investigation. The court found that the first charge-sheet was defective as the investigator had not formed a definite opinion on all charges, specifically under Section 201 I.P.C., at the time of filing.

2. Interpretation of "Case" and "Offence" Under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C):
The court examined the definitions and usage of "case" and "offence" under the Cr.P.C. It was noted that "case" refers to the entire transaction or occurrence involving one or multiple offences, and the investigation should cover all the facts and circumstances of the case. The court concluded that a final report or charge-sheet under Section 173 could only be filed after the completion of the investigation of all offences arising from the case.

3. Completion of Investigation Under Section 173 of Cr.P.C:
The court emphasized that investigation includes the collection of evidence and the formation of an opinion on whether there is a case to place the accused on trial. The court referred to the Supreme Court's observations in H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, which stated that the formation of an opinion is part of the investigation process. The court found that the investigation was not complete when the first charge-sheet was filed as the investigator was awaiting legal opinion on Section 201 I.P.C., and thus had not formed a definitive opinion on all charges.

4. Right to Bail Under Proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C:
The court held that since the investigation was not complete within the 90-day period, the detention of the accused beyond this period was illegal. Therefore, the accused were entitled to bail as a matter of right under Proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The court imposed strict conditions for their release on bail, including restrictions on their movement and daily reporting to the investigator.

5. Jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam:
There was a controversy regarding the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, and whether the committal should be made to the Sessions Court at Ernakulam or Tellicherry. The counsel for the revision petitioners withdrew all contentions challenging the jurisdiction of the courts at Ernakulam. The court found no difficulty for the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, to deal with the committal proceedings and commit the case to the Sessions Court at Ernakulam.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and directed the release of the petitioners on bail with specific conditions. The proceedings initiated by the Magistrate were deemed irregular but not vitiated, and the irregularity was cured by the additional charge-sheet filed after the completion of the investigation. The case was to proceed in the Sessions Court at Ernakulam.