1956 Supreme(SC) 82

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
3rd October, 1956
BHAGWATI, IMAM, S.K. DAS AND GOVINDA MENON, JJ.
Niranjan Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
State of U.P., Respondent.
Udaibir Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of U.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 60 and 61 of 1956
Criminal Appeal No. 60. of 1956.
Criminal Appeal No.61 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Jai Gopal Seth, Senior Advocate. (Mr. S.C.Saran and Mr. G.C.Mathur, Advocates with him) in (Cri. A. No. 60 of 1956) and Dr. J.N.Bannerji, Senior Advocate. (Mr. P.C.Agarwala Advocate, with him) (in Cri. A. No. 61 of 1956), for Appellants; Mr. H. J. Umrigar and Mr. C.P. Lal, Advocates, for Respondent (in both Appeals).

Headnote:U.P. Police Regulations, Rule 109-Not statutory rule Breach thereof would not vitiate the trial-Failure to submit case diary to superior officers day to day-Effect-Investigation of crime-Criminal Procedure Code, Chap. XLV-Applicability. - Article 136 (I)-Criminal trial-Finding about guilt when can be re-opened by Supreme Court.

       Held: "The learned Sessions Judge accepted the testimony of these witnesses and disbelieved the story put forward by the accused and in this he had the concurrence of the High Court. Such being the case, this Court would not be justified in re-opening the finding about the guilt of the appellants if no question of law is involved, or if the conclusion is not perverse or opposed to principles of natural justice or revolting to judicial conscience." (Per Govinda Menon J.) - Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, Rule 109-Not statutory rule -Breach thereof would not vitiate the trial-Failure to submit case diary to superior officers day to day-Effect-Investigation of crime-Criminal Procedure Code, Ch. XLV -Applicability.

       The appellants were found guilty of an offence under S. 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death and various terms of imprisonment. Their appeal having been rejected by the High Court, special leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court under Art. 136(1) of the Constitution, limited to the question whether the failure to comply with the rules relating to the submission of the police case diary, violates the entire trial and what the consequences of such failure are. It was in evidence that the dacoits took place between the night of February, 28 and March 1, 1954, that the Sub-Inspector Police reached the spot for investigation that very night and recorded statements of various witnesses and finished other preliminary work, but the parches of the case diary for the period between 1 and March 7, 1954 were sent all together to the Superintendents of Police only on March, 7 and not as is enjoined by the rules every day as and :when the days recording is complete. Para 109 of Ch. XI of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations lays down that when the investigation is closed for the day, a copy of the case diary for the day should be sent to the superior police officers. It was argued that this infraction of a mandatory rule of law had resulted in prejudice and the findings regarding the guilt of the accused should be reopened and the Supreme Court reassess and assay the evidence to find out how far the guilt of the appellants had been proved beyond reasonable doubt .

       Held: (dismissing the appeal): (1) If the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations were a set of rules framed under any statute, and as such have the force of law, then a violation of any rule there under, may either amount to an illegality or an irregularity which mayor may not vitiate proceedings. The Police Act, 1861 was enacted to reorganize the police and to make It a more efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crimes, whereby State Government is given authority to appoint police officers, such as the Inspector General etc. Under S. 12 of that Act, the Inspector General of Police may, from time to time, subject to the approval of the State Government, frame such, rules, and orders as he shall deem expedient relative to the organization classification and distribution of the police force, the places at which the members of the force shall reside, and the particular services to be performed by the their inspection, the description of form, accoutrements and other necessaries to be furnished to them ; the collecting and communicating by them of intelligence and information, and all such other orders and rules relative to the Police force as the Inspector-General shall, from time to time, deem expedient for preventing abuse or neglect of duty, and for rendering such force efficient ,in the discharge of its duties it is not as if these police regulations are rules framed by the inspector General in accordance with section 12 but they are the result of the State Government laying down the mode Of conduct and how the officers have to perform their duties.

       (2) Nowhere in the rules is it stated that there is any statutory authority for the framing of rule 109, nor is it said to form any addition to a statute, even though some other rules are expressly stated to be statutory ones. Such being the case it is clear that rule 109 has no statutory function but is only an in injunctions by the Executive Government to the police officers as to how they must regulate their work and conduct themselves during the course of investigation. A breach of it, therefore, would not vitiate the trial. Chapter XLV, Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to this case.

       (3) It could not be said that-because the Sub-Inspector could not send copies of his diary to the superior officers every day, the same should be considered as a suspicious document unworthy of credit. The High Court and the Court of the first instance have cast no doubt upon the genuineness of the case diary and that being the case, it is not open to the Supreme Court without any compelling reasons to say that it is spurious or suspicous.