9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estigation of the cognizable offence. A suo motu move on the part of the police officer to investigate a cognizable offence impelled by the information received from some sources is not outside the purview of the provisions contained in Sections 154 to 157 of the Code or any other provisions of the Code. The scheme of Sections 154,156 and 157 was clarified thus by Subba Rao, J. speaking for the Court in State of U.P. vs. Bhagwant Kishore [ 1963 (4) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT] . In fact, neither the High Court found nor any argument was addressed to the effect that there is a statutory bar against the police officer who registered the FIR on the basis of the information received taking up the investigation. Though there is no such statutory bar, the premise on which the High Court quashed the proceedings was that the investigation by the same officer who lodged the FIR would prejudice the accused inasmuch as the investigating officer cannot be expected to act fairly and objectively. We find no principle or binding authority to hold that the moment the competent police officer, on the basis of information received, makes out an FIR incorporating his name as the informant, he forfeits his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered the case by lodging a first information ought not to have investigated the case and that itself had caused prejudice to the accused. We have no hesitation in holding that the approach of the High Court is erroneous and its conclusion legally unsustainable. There is nothing in the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which precluded the appellant (Inspector of Police, Vigilance) from taking up the investigation. The fact that the said police officer prepared the FIR on the basis of the information received by him and registered the suspected crime does not, in our view, disqualify him from taking up the investigation of the cognizable offence. A suo motu move on the part of the police officer to investigate a cognizable offence impelled by the information received from some sources is not outside the purview of the provisions contained in Sections 154 to 157 of the Code or any other provisions of the Code. The scheme of Sections 154,156 and 157 was clarified thus by Subba Rao, J. speaking for the Court in State of U.P. vs. Bhagwant Kishore [AIR 1964 SC 221]. Section 154 of the Code prescribes the mode of recording the information received orally or in writing by an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which weighed with the High Court could be a ground to quash the prosecution, the powers of investigation conferred on the police officers would be unduly hampered for no good reason. What is expected to be done by the police officers in the normal course of discharge of their official duties will then be vulnerable to attack. There are two decisions of this Court from which support was drawn in this case and in some other cases referred to by the High Court. We would like to refer to these two decisions in some detail. The first one is the case of Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1976 SC 985). There, the Head Constable to whom the offer of bribe was allegedly made, seized the currency notes and gave the first information report. Thereafter, he himself took up the investigation. But, later on, when it came to his notice that he was not authorized to do so, he forwarded the papers to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The DSP then reinvestigated the case and filed the charge sheet against the accused. The Head Constable and the accompanying Constables were the only witnesses in that case. This Court found several circumstances which cast a doubt on the veracity of the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the evidence of PWs 2 3 was discrepant and unreliable and in the absence of independent corroboration, the prosecution case cannot be believed. Towards the end, the Court noted another disturbing feature in the case . The Court then observed: 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 Cr.P.C. 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 . The conviction was set aside by this Court for the above reasons. At first blush, the observations quoted above might convey the impression that the Court laid down a proposition that a Police Officer who in the course of discharge of his duties finds certain incriminating material to connect a person to the crime, sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
