SUPREME COURT & HIGHCOURT Rulings on POLICE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Facts Held I.2 : SECOND F.I.R. M. Krishna vs State of Karnataka* The appellant was a Class I officer in the Karnataka Administrative Service. At the instance of the police, an FIR lodged against him under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in respect of check period of 1-8-1978 to 24-8-1989 alleging that he had assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Investigating Officer submitted a '8' Report before the Special Judge, who after issuing a public notice inviting objections, accepted the report. On 25-7-1995 another FIR was field at the instance of the police against the appellant in respect of the period 1-8-1978 to 25-7-1995 under the same provisions and making similar allegations. The appellant filed a petition under Section 482, CrPC before the Kamataka High Court seeking quashing of the second FIR on the ground that in view of the result of the earlier investigation the inclusion of the same check period in the second FIR was not proper. However, the High Court refused relief and observed that the second FIR contained a set of fresh allegations in respect of fresh alleged assets during a fresh check period. . There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or the Prevention of Corruption Act to sustain the appellant's contention that the present FIR itself is bad in law. There is no provision in the CrPC which debars the filing of an FIR and investigation into the alleged offences merely because for an earlier period, namely, 1-8-1978 to 24-8-1-989, there was an FIR which was duly investigated into the culminated in a 'B' Form Report which was accepted by a competent court. At the same time, it has to be held that the conclusion of the High Court that the present proceeding relates to fresh alleged assets and a fresh check period is not wholly correct. Though the earlier period also could be a subject-matter of investigation for a variety of reasons like some assets not being taken into account or some materials brought during investigation not being taken into account, yet at the same time, the results of the earlier' investigation cannot be totally obliterated and ignored by the investigating agency. But that cannot be a ground for quashing of the FIR itself and for injuncting the investigating authority to investigate into the offence alleged. The appellant is right in contending that the assets which were valued in the earlier investigation proceeding at a particular value cannot be valued higher in the present proceedings unless any positive ground is there for such revaluation. *(1999) 3 see 247 6
Facts Held 1.2 : F.I.R. AND REGISTRATION OF F.I.R. Ramesh Kumar VS The State (Delhi Admn)* Duty constable in the LNJPN Hospital gave information on telephone to P.S. Kotwali on the basis of which D.D. No. 37-B was recorded at 9.05 p.m. about bringing of Dinesh Kumar in the casualty of the hospital. The SHO alongwith one SI and copy of D.D. entry reached the hospital and recorded the statement of Ashok Kumar, who had brought Dinesh Kumar (deceased) to the hospital and rukka was sent to Police Station through Sl at 9.45 p.m. and the duty officer at P.S. Kotwali then recorded the F.I.R. at 10.05 p.m. The duty officer is required to mention the brief facts including the name of the assailant, names of the witnesses and the weapon used in the daily diary entry about the registration of the case. In the instant case all these details are conspicuous by their absence from D.D. entry. There are no valid explanation as to why these details have not been mentioned. Also, the special report was sent without mentioning the name of the constable through whom it was despatched, and no efforts have at all been made to bring on record the testimony of this constable which could have led corroboration to the testimony of the duty officer and other police officials about the factum of the recording of the FIR at the time at which it is claimed to have been recorded. In the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution had, not been able to prove that the FIR was recorded at the time at which it was claimed to have been recorded. *1990 Cr.L.J. 255 (Delhi) 7
Page 1 and 2: SUPREME CO
Page 3 and 4: precedential value in terms of the
Page 5 and 6: Case Index:. Supreme Court I " Sr."
Page 7 and 8: Sr. Name of the Case. . Citation :
Page 9 and 10: Sr. Name 'of the Case Citation No.
Page 11 and 12: Case Index: High Court ' Sr. Name o
Page 13 and 14: Sr. Name of the Case Citation. . No
Page 15 and 16: Sr. Name of the Case Citation No. -
Page 18: Facts Held 1.1 : TERRITORIAL JURISD
Page 21 and 22: Hence, in the present case, the Hig
Page 26 and 27: Held 1.2 : F.I.R. AND REGISTRATION
Page 29: Facts Held 1.2 : F.I.R. - IT IS A P
Page 33 and 34: The judiciary will remain unaware-
Page 35: Facts Held 1.3 : I NTERROGA TION Bh
Page 38: Facts Held 1.3 : INTERROGATION 1.4
Page 42: Facts Held 1.4 : ARREST AND CUSTODY
Page 45: It shall be the duty of the Magistr
Page 48: he is not a police officer in its s
Page 52 and 53: 1.4 : ARREST AND CUSTODY OF FEMALE
Page 54 and 55: 1.5 : HANDCUFFING AND SECURITY In r
Page 57: Facts Held 1.5 : HANDCUFFING AND SE
Page 61 and 62: 1.5 : HANDCUFFING AND SECURITY O.K.
Page 64: courts from time to time in connect
Page 68: NDPS Act to all warrants, searches,
Page 71 and 72: arrests or searches they would be a
Page 73:
Facts Held 1.6 : SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Page 76:
during the period of investigation
Page 80:
However, no general and wide propos
Page 83 and 84:
Held 1.8 : CHARGE-SHEET State of We
Page 85 and 86:
Held 1.8 : CHARGE-SHEET - NO COGNIZ
Page 87:
It is, thus, clear that grant of su
Page 90 and 91:
and 159 of the Code is that if a po
Page 92 and 93:
Held 1.9 : DIRECTION BY THE MAGISTR
Page 95 and 96:
Facts Held 1.9 : INTERVENTION BY TH
Page 98:
Held The Special Inspector-General
Page 102 and 103:
Held II.1 : RECORDING OF CONFESSION
Page 105:
Facts 11.1 : RECORDING OF CONFESSIO
Page 109 and 110:
. . understandability. In the insta
Page 111 and 112:
11.3 : RECORDING OF DYING DECLARATI
Page 113 and 114:
PW 4, Inspector Didar Singh was the
Page 115 and 116:
11.4 : POLICE AS WITNESS Facts Held
Page 117 and 118:
11.6 : EVIDENTIARYVALUEOFSITE PLAN
Page 119 and 120:
111.1 : RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL
Page 121 and 122:
111.1 : RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL
Page 123 and 124:
111.1 : RIGHT,TO LIFE AND PERSONAL
Page 125 and 126:
111.2 : RIGHT AGAINST TORTURE AND I
Page 127 and 128:
IV.1 : EXTERNMENT Facts Sirajkhan v
Page 129 and 130:
the principle of fair play arid jus
Page 131 and 132:
IV.1 : EXTERNMENT Facts Hussainmiya
Page 133 and 134:
IV.2 : POWER OF POLICE SURVEILLANCE
Page 135 and 136:
Moreover there were no sufficient g
Page 138 and 139:
Facts Held IV.3 :SANCTION OF ROUTE
Page 141 and 142:
The foregoing discussion yields, th
Page 144 and 145:
and every time such requests afresh
Page 146 and 147:
(4) The State has a duty to maintai
Page 148 and 149:
prescribes a period of limitation d
Page 150 and 151:
IV.8 : REGULATING HORSE-RACING AND
show all

SUPREME COURT & HIGHCOURT Rulings on POLICE

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?