Inquiry U/S 116(2) CrPC Must Be Carried Out In A Similar Manner To Summons Trial: Kerala High Court
Manju Elsa Isac
19 Sep 2024 5:35 AM GMT
The Kerala High Court held that the provision in Section 116(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) which says that the recording of evidence and conduct of trial in an inquiry under Section 116 shall be done 'as nearly as maybe practicable' in the manner of a summons trial would mean that the essentials of summons trial should be followed in such an inquiry.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed:
“Section 116(2) provides that, an inquiry contemplated under Section 116 of Cr.P.C shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner prescribed for conducting trial and recording evidence in summons cases. In this context, the text 'as nearly as possible' has to be understood to ensure that the essentials of summons trial should be followed.”
For context, Section 116 enquiry is conducted by a Magistrate into information on a person who is directed to execute a bond for his good behaviour or for keeping peace. An order is passed under Section 117 after conducting such an inquiry.
In this case, the petitioner argued that the procedure under Section 116 was not properly followed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate before passing the order. Against that order, he approached the High Court.
The High Court held that an inquiry under Section 116 Cr. P.C. has to follow all the essentials of a summons trial. As per the procedure of a summons trial, if the accused does not plead guilty, the Magistrate has to hear the accused and take all the evidence he produces in his defence.
From examining the records of proceedings before the Magistrate, the High Court noted that the matter was posted for taking the statement of the petitioner after the prosecution witness was examined. After taking the statement of the petitioner, the next posting date was for pronouncing the judgment.
The High Court said that the accused was not given an opportunity to adduce evidence or being heard.
The court noticing that the procedure of a summons trial is not followed, send the matter back to the Magistrate. The Magistrate was directed to pass a speaking order with reasons after following the required procedures.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates Koice George, Liji J. Vadakkedom
Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor Adv. Renjit George
Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet. 786 of 2024
Case Title: T. G. Anoop v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 582
