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

Ans. Yes. In the case of “petty offences” as defined under Section 206 (2) Cr.P.C. and which can be summarily disposed of under Sections 260 or 261 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can issue a “special summons” indicating the amount of fine not exceeding Rs. 1,000/- in the event of conviction and calling upon the accused either –

· to appear in person or through his counsel, if he is pleading not guilty, or

· if he desires to plead guilty, to transmit by post or by messenger to the Magistrate, the said plea in writing and also the amount of fine specified in the summons.

Q.112 Is the accused, before recording his plea, entitled to the prosecution records ?

Ans. Yes. If it is a case instituted on a “police report”, the Magistrate has to comply with Section 207 Cr.P.C. If it is a case instituted on a “complaint”, the Magistrate shall comply with Section 208 Cr.P.C. This is a requirement to be complied with by the Magistrate concerned even if the case is liable to be committed to the Court o Session being one triable exclusively by a Court of Session.

Q.113 What is the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate if during the inquiry or trial of a complaint case, it is made to appear that an investigation by the police in respect of the same occurrence, is pending ?

Ans. The Magistrate may call for a report from the police and then stay the proceedings of inquiry or trial of the complaint case. In case the police charge-sheet the accused with regard to the same occurrence, then the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence on the police report as well and inquire into or try together both the case instituted on a complaint as well as the case instituted on a police report. (Vide Section 210 Cr.P.C.)

But, if the facts constituting the offence in the “complaint” as well as the “police report” are distinct and different, then the Magistrate shall not conduct a joint trial. The two cases shall be tried one after the other and judgment pronounced in quick succession. (Vide Harjeender Singh v. State of Punjab - (1985) 1 SCC 422 = AIR 1985 SC 404 – A. P. Sen, V. Balakrishna Eradi – JJ; Samuel Mathai v. State of Kerala - 2007 (4) KLT 736 - V. Ramkumar – J; Balbir v. State of Haryana - (2000) 1 SCC 285 = AIR 2000 SC 11 – K. T. Thomas, A. P. Misra, S. S. Muhammed Quadri – JJ.)

Ans.

· In paragraph 14 of the verdict passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in State of Kerala v. V. Narayanan Bhaskaran 1991 (2) KLT 217 = 1991 Cr.L.J. 238 – K. T. Thomas, Sankaran Nair - JJ, it has been observed as follows :-

“The object of criminal law is to suppress criminal enterprise and punish the guilty.”

· In paragraph 9 of Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1962 SC 439 = 1962 (1) Cri.L.J. 479 = 1962 KHC 478 (SC) – 4 Judges – P. B. Gagendragadkar, A. K. Sarkar, K. N. Wanchoo, K. C. Das Gupta – JJ, the Supreme Court speaking through Justice K. C. Das Gupta observed as follows:-

“It is a Court’s duty to convict a guilty person when the guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, no less than, it is its duty to acquit the accused when such guilt is not so established.”

Q.115 How is the above object achieved through “criminal trial” ?

Ans.

· The above object can be achieved only through a fair and impartial trial as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in which justice is done not only to the victim but also to the accused and further to the society at large. (Vide --

1. Ambika Prasad v. State (Delhi Administration) (2000) 2 SCC 646 = AIR 2000 SC 718 – G. B. Pattanaik , M. B. Shah - JJ;

2. Para 86.1 of Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar (2017) 4 SCC 397 = AIR 2017 SC 1079 – Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy - JJ;

3. Para 39 of Gopalakrishnan P. @ Dileep v. State of Kerala (2020) 9 SCC 161 = AIR 2020 SC 1 – A. M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari - JJ).