9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Special Police Establishment Act. Therefore, non compliance of the mandatory provisions Under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure if the case is registered on the basis of the information received suo-motu after specifying that the information reveals prima facie cognizable offence against the Respondent herein and found that the matter is fit for investigation to be taken by the Appellant herein, in not following the provisions of Section 154 does not vitiate the registration of FIR and further proceedings in the matter of registration. further there is no need for this Court to await the larger Bench decision on the issue in the case in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. 2013 (11) TMI 1520 - SUPREME COURT. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is hereby set aside. It is open for the CBI to proceed further in the matter to conduct investigation and proceed in accordance with law against the Respondent. - Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2013 - B.S. Chauhan and V. Gopala Gowda, JJ. ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25th November, 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. M.P. No. 2302 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Procedure is permissible in law? III) Whether the High Court in its impugned decision has correctly interpreted Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to its ambit and scope of and has correctly read the said Section in juxta-position with Sections 156 and 157 Code of Criminal Procedure? 3. In support of the said issues, the learned senior Counsel Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, has placed strong reliance upon the CBI (Crime) Manual of 2005 -- Chapter 8 regarding registration of Complaints and Source of Information, which Manual has been prepared as per the observations made by a larger Bench decision of this Court in the case of Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.(1998) 1 SCC 226]. The learned senior Counsel has invited our attention to paras 8.26 and 8.27 which provisions state that collection of source of information must be submitted in writing giving all available details of specific acts of omissions and commissions and copies of documents collected discreetly. The verification of SIRs must begin only after the competent authority has approved its registration. At this stage regular SIR number will be assigned t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted crime, is competent to take up investigation and submit his final report. It is not open for the accused or the person against whom the case is registered to allege bias or prejudice to be inferred for quashing the proceedings. In paragraph 4 of the aforesaid judgment, strong reliance has been placed in support of the conclusion that there is nothing in the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure which precludes the Inspector of Police, Vigilance from taking up the investigation if Police Officer prepares 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 Section 154 to 157 of the Code or any other provisions of the Code. The said observations are made by this Court with reference to the scheme of the aforesaid provisions which were clarified by this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi (AIR 1964 SC 221]. The learned senior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is appeal. 6. The High Court has not recorded the finding that if the contents of the FIR registered against the Respondent are taken on its face value do not disclose the cognizable offence and thus, the FIR was liable to be quashed. Rather it has been quashed merely on technical ground that the copy of the said FIR after being lodged had not been given to the informant. The judgment impugned herein is required to be examined as to whether giving the copy of the FIR to the informant is mandatory and if not what is the prejudice caused to the Respondent/accused as the informant has not raised the grievance of non-supply of the copy of the FIR nor it has been the case of the Respondent that he sought the copy of the FIR and was not given. 7. The issue also requires to be examined on the touchstone of doctrine of prejudice. Thus, unless in a given situation, the aggrieved makes out a case of prejudice or injustice, some infraction of law would not vitiate the order/enquiry/result. In judging a question of prejudice, the court must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to technicalities. (Vide: Jankinath Sarangi v. State of Orissa (1969) 3 SCC 392; State of U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered. (Emphasis added) (See also: Dattatraya Moreshwar v. State of Bombay and Ors. AIR 1952 SC 181; Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur v. Municipal Board, Rampur AIR 1965 SC 895; and State of Mysore v. V.K. Kangan AIR 1975 SC 2190). 12. In Sharif-Ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone AIR 1980 SC 303, this Court, while considering the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 89 of the J K Representation of People Act, 1957, held that the difference between a mandatory and directory rule is that the former requires strict observance while in the case of latter, substantial compliance of the rule may be enough and where the statute provides that failure to make observance of a particular rule would lead to a specific consequence, the provision has to be construed as mandatory. 13. In Rubber House v. Excellsior Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1989 SC 1160, this Court considered the provisions of the Haryana (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1976, which provided for mentioning the amount of arrears of rent in the application was held to be directory though the word shall has been used in the statutory provision for the reason tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the CBI adhere scrupulously to the provisions in the Manual in relation to its investigative functions, like raids, seizure and arrests;. Any deviation from the established procedure should be viewed seriously and severe disciplinary action taken against the officials concerned. 19. The CBI has prepared the Crime Manual of 2005 which is considered by this Court in the case of Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 441, wherein the apex court at para 30 has laid down the principle as under:- 30. Lodging of a first information report by CBI is governed by a manual. It may hold a preliminary inquiry; it has been given the said power in Chapter VI of the CBI Manual. A prima facie case may be held to have been established only on completion of a preliminary enquiry. 20. As per the said Manual, procedure is laid down under Chapter 8 regarding Collection of Source Information under paras 8.26, 8.27 and 8.28 which read as under: 8.26 As a part of their duty and in terms of annual programme of work, all Investigating and Supervisory Officers are required to collect quality information regarding graft, misuse of official position, possession of disprop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complaint or after verification of an information or on completion of a preliminary enquiry taken up by CBI if it is revealed that prima facie a cognizable offence has been committed and the matter is fit for investigation to be undertaken by CBI, an FIR should be recorded Under Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure and investigation be taken up. While considering registration of an FIR, it should be ensured that at least the main offence(s) have been notified Under Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and further the rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of State, represented by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirapalli (supra) wherein this Court, at para 4, has made the following observations which read as under:- 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot in itself constitute information within the meaning of Section 154 of the Code or the basis for an investigation Under Section 157 thereof. In State of Kerala v. M.J. Samuel ILR 1960 Kerala 783 (FB) a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court ruled that, 'it can be stated as a general principle that it is not every piece of information however vague, indefinite and unauthenticated it may be that should be recorded as the first information for the sole reason that such information was the first, in point of time, to be received by the police regarding the commission of an offence'. The Full Bench also took care to make it clear that whether or not a statement would constitute the first information report in a case is a question of fact and would depend upon the circumstances of that case. 23. The said observations are made in the above decisions on the basis of the clarification made by this Court regarding the provisions of Section 154, 156 and 157, Code of Criminal Procedure in the case of State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi (supra) upon which rightly placed reliance in justification of the procedure followed by CBI regarding the registration of FIR the same is traceab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
