Questions & Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar- Investigation By Police- PART XIII

Ans. Yes. Under Section 36 Cr.P.C. an officer superior to the officer-in-charge of the Police Station has been given the same powers as that of the officer-in-charge of the Police Station. (Vide para 9 of State of Bihar v. Lalu Singh (2014) 1 SCC 663 – C. K. Prasad, J. S. Khehar - JJ).

In Murukeshan v. State of Kerala 2011 (1) KLT 194 – V. Ramkumar - J, the Kerala High Court has held that a superior Police officer, without himself taking over the investigation, is not entitled to give directions to the investigating officer since any action taken under dictation from the superior officer will have to be authored by the investigating officer. This direction is in accord with the verdict of the Apex Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India AIR 1998 SC 889 – 3 Judges – J. S. Verma – CJI, S. P. Bharucha, S.C. Sen – JJ.

Q.62 Can the Court refuse to take cognizance of the offence for the reason that charge-sheet is incomplete ?

Ans. No. The report under S.173(2) Cr.P.C. is nothing more than an opinion of the police officer that as far as he is concerned, he has been able to collect evidence during his investigation about the commission of the offence by the accused who is being placed on trial. If the police report or charge sheet contains necessary details so as to enable the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and proceed further, it cannot be said that there is failure of compliance of S.173(5) Cr.P.C. just because the scientific reports have not been produced along with the charge sheet filed by the police officer. In such a case it cannot be said that the charge sheet so produced is incomplete (Vide Swami Premananda @ Premkumar @ Ravi v. Inspector of Police, XXXIX MLJ (Crl) 702 - Shivappa - J). Even in a case where the investigating officer has chosen to term the police report as 'incomplete', the power of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence is not lost. If the police report and the materials produced along with it are sufficient to satisfy the Magistrate that he should take cognizance of the offence, then his power is not fettered by the label which the investigating agency chooses to give to the report submitted under S.173(2) Cr.P.C. (See paras 7 and 9 of State of Maharashtra v. S. V. Dongre 1995 (1) SCC 42 = AIR 1995 SC 231 - 3 Judges - R. M. Sahai, Dr. A. S. Anand, N. P. Singh – JJ.)

If the "police report" or "challan" or "charge-sheet" filed by the police is treated as "incomplete" by the police for the reason that "serologist report" and "site map" are yet to be received, it cannot be treated as an "incomplete report". It can be treated as a "complete report" if there are sufficient materials on which the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence. (Vide paras 13 and 14 of Tara Singh v. State AIR 1951 SC 441 – 4 Judges - Saiyid Fazl Ali, M. Patanjali Sastri, S. R .Das, Vivian Bose – JJ; Para 5 of Kamalaksha v. S.I. of Police 2007 (1) KLT 299 = 2007 (1) KHC 122 – V. Ramkumar - J).

Q.63 Can the investigation of a case be monitored by the Court ?

Ans. Yes. In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Prinipal Secretary (2014) 2 SCC 532 = AIR 2014 SC 666 – 3 Judges – R. M. Lodha, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph – JJ, it was observed as follows:-

"43. The monitoring of investigations / inquiries by the Court is intended to ensure that proper progress takes place without directing or channeling the mode or manner of investigation. The whole idea is to retain public confidence in the impartial inquiry / investigation into the alleged crime; that inquiry / investigation into every accusation is made on a reasonable basis irrespective of the position and status of that person and the inquiry / investigation is taken to the logical conclusion in accordance with law.

44. The monitoring by the Court aims to lend credence to the inquiry / investigation being conducted by the CBI as premier investigating agency and to eliminate any impression of bias, lack of fairness and objectivity therein.

45. However, the investigation / inquiry monitored by the court does not mean that the court supervises such investigation / inquiry. To supervise would mean to observe and direct the execution of a task whereas to monitor would only mean to maintain surveillance. The concern and interest of the court in such 'court directed' or 'court monitored' cases is that there is no undue delay in the investigation, and the investigation is conducted in a free and fair manner with no external interference. In such a process, the people acquainted with facts and circumstances of the case would also have a sense of security and they would cooperate with the investigation given that the superior courts are seized of the matter. We find that in some cases, the expression 'court monitored' has been interchangeably used with 'court supervised investigation'. Once the court supervises an investigation, there is hardly anything left in the trial. Under the Code, the investigating officer is only to form an opinion and it is for the court to ultimately try the case based on the opinion formed by the investigating officer and see whether any offence has been made out. If a superior court supervises the investigation and thus facilitates the formulation of such opinion in the form of a report under S.173(2) of the Code, it will be difficult if not impossible for the trial court to not be influenced or bound by such opinion. Then trial becomes a farce. Therefore, supervision of investigation by any court is a contradiction in terms. The Code does not envisage such a procedure, and it cannot either. In the rare and compelling circumstances referred to above, the superior courts may monitor an investigation to ensure that the investigating agency conducts the investigation in a free, fair and time - bound manner without any external interference."

The power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to clothe the Magistrate with the authority to issue appropriate direction for ensuring a proper investigation including the monitoring of the same. (Vide para 24 of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 = AIR 2008 SC 907 - ). Section 159 Cr.P.C. may also be relevant in this context.

NOTE BY VRK: It is always better for the Court to refrain from monitoring the investigation since such acts of adventurism may invite unnecessary criticism that the Court is being partisan. If the investigation gets derailed, then there are interested elements to bring it to the notice of the Court for appropriate intervention.

Q.64 Whether the words "forward the accused under custody" in Section 170 (1) Cr.P.C. pre-suppose arrest of the accused ?

Ans. Section 170 (1) Cr.P.C. states that upon investigation under Chapter XII if it appears to the police officer that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground to justify the forwarding of the accused to the Magistrate for trial, such officer shall "forward the accused under custody" to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance and try. There is a practice among some investigating officers to arrest the accused and produce him along with the charge sheet before the Magistrate in purported compliance of Section 170 (1) Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court has clarified that as long as the investigating officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons or will not co-operate with the investigation, there is no obligation on the police officer to arrest such accused at the time of filing the charge-sheet. (Vide Siddharth v. State of U. P. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615 = 2021 (5) KHC 353 – Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hrishikesh Roy - JJ; Aman Preet Singh v. CBI 2021 (6) KHC 54 (SC) – Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M. M. Sundresh – JJ.)

Q.65 What is the report filed by the Police before the Court after the conclusion of investigation ?

Part 11: Questions & Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar- Investigation By Police-PART XI