9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is evident from the order passed by him which is extracted above. It is pertinent to point out that the said order remains unchallenged by the Appellant. Therefore, it is not open for him to turn around and contend that cognizance was not taken by the learned ACJM on 3.7.2013. Thus, filing of police report containing the particulars as mentioned Under Section 173(2) amounted to completion of filing of the report before the learned ACJM, cognizance is taken and registered the same. The contention of the Appellant that the police report filed in this case is not as per the legal requirement Under Section 173(2) (5) of Code of Criminal Procedure which entitled him for default bail is rightly rejected by the High Court and does not call for any interference by this Court. Appeal dismissed. - Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 9599 of 2013) - - - Dated:- 15-1-2015 - V. Gopala Gowda and C. Nagappan, JJ. For Appellant: Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Adv., Jagdish Ramani, Karan Kalia, Pranav Diesh, Nishant Bishnoi and Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Advs. For Respondents: Maninder Singh, Tushar Mehta, ASGs, Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Maheen Pradhan, Subramoni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... because the period in question had already expired. 26 days of April leaving aside 4.4.2013, namely the date of arrest, 31 days of May, 30 days of June and 3 days of July complete the period of 90 days. The error of law committed by the High Court is to exclude the first day of arrest, namely, 4.4.2013. b) It is further contended that once the period of 90 days expired even according to the High Court on 3.7.2013, any further detention without judicial order Under Section 209 or Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the case may be, is a requirement of law. The order made during the investigation on 21.6.2013 expired on 5.7.2013. Therefore, it could not have any legal efficacy after 3.7.2013 because the power Under Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure comes to an end. c) It is further contended by the learned senior Counsel that no cognizance was taken on 3.7.2013. The accused had no right to oppose on the ground of want of sanction or total want of legal evidence. The right could not be claimed nor could the court intelligently adjudicate upon it without the documents which had to be filed Under Section 173(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure 6. It is further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody Under Section 170. 11. Further Under Section 190(1)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure which states that it is upon a police report that the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offences. In the instant case, as could be seen, it is the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate ( ACJM in short), who has ordered on 3.7.2013 as under: The charge sheet is hereby ordered to be registered after due verification. In case of accused No. 1 Shri P.P. Pandey order has been passed on 21.6.2013 below application Under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to appear before this Court on 31st July, 2013. Yaadi be made to respective Jail Superintendent of accused No. 2 Shri D.G. Vanzara and accused No. 3 Dr. N.K. Amin. Issue summons to accused No. 4 Shri G.L. Singhal, accused No. 5 Shri J.G. Parmar, Accused No. 6 Shri Tarun Barot and accused No. 7 Anaju Jhman Chaudhary mentioned in charge sheet, for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear that even after the charge-sheet is submitted, further investigation, if called for, is not precluded. If further investigation is not precluded then there is no question of not permitting the prosecution to produce additional documents which were gathered prior to or subsequent to the investigation. In such cases, there cannot be any prejudice to the accused. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Special Court cannot be sustained. In the said decision it is held that if some mistake is committed in not producing the relevant documents at the time of submitting the report, it is always open to the investigating officer to produce the same with the permission of the court. The Bench proceeded further to observe that if further investigation is not precluded, then there is no question of not permitting the prosecution to produce additional documents which were gathered prior to or subsequent to the investigation and the word shall used in Sub-section (5) cannot be interpreted as mandatory, but as directory. Therefore, it is contended that the High Court is justified in refusing to grant Default Bail in favour of the Appellant. 14. With reference to the aforesaid rival ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M on 3.7.2013. On this count, the contentions urged by the learned senior Counsel Mr. Ram Jethmalani appearing for the Appellant are wholly untenable and liable to be rejected. 16. The observation made at para 76 of the constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of K. Veeraswamy (supra) that the report is complete if it is accompanied by all documents and statement of witnesses as required Under Section 173(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be construed as the statement of law, since it was not made in the context of the police report Under Section 2(r) read with Section 173(2), (5) and (8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. On the contrary, the three Judge Bench of this Court in the decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai's case (supra), after referring to the earlier judgment of the coordinate Bench in Narayan Rao's case (supra) categorically held that the word shall used in Sub-section (5) cannot be interpreted as mandatory, but directory. The said statement of law is made after considering the provisions of Section 2(r) read with Section 173(5) and (8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, filing of police report containing the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
