SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Cal) 350

High Court Of Calcutta
Anil K. Sen And G. N. Roy, JJ.
PAPPA RAO - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Criminal Revisional 1  Of  1984
Decided On : 10/09/1984

Advocates Appeared:
R.SHIV SARUP, SARDUL SINGH

Filing of the chargesheet under section 173 is not a part of actual investigation which does not conclude until the filing.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 167 (5) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - INVESTIGATION - COMPLETION - FILING OF CHARGE SHEET - DELAY - EFFECT - RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING - EVIDENCE - FINDING OF FACT - INTERFERENCE BY HIGH COURT IN REVISION - SECTION 360 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - PROBATION OF GOOD CONDUCT - DISCRETION OF COURT - EXERCISE - GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND RASHNESS - NO CASE FOR RELEASE ON PROBATION.

Fact of the Case:

The accused was convicted of rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of a 9-year-old boy. The accused challenged the conviction on the grounds that the chargesheet was filed beyond 180 days from the date of arrest, that the death was accidental and not due to his negligence, and that he should have been released on probation under section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the investigation was completed within 180 days from the date of arrest when the chargesheet was drawn up, and that the delay in filing the chargesheet did not constitute a breach of section 167 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court also found that the evidence supported the finding of the lower courts that the death was due to the accused's rash and negligent driving, and that the accused did not deserve to be released on probation.

Issues: 1. Whether the chargesheet was filed beyond 180 days from the date of arrest in violation of section 167 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Whether the death was accidental or due to the accused's rash and negligent driving. 3. Whether the accused should have been released on probation under section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The investigation is complete when the Investigating Officer forms his opinion and draws up the report. Forwarding the same to the Magistrate is a statutory obligation which follows the same. 2. The evidence, including the evidence of eye witnesses, established that the accused had been driving the Truck so recklessly that that he had no control over it. 3. The accused's negligence and rashness were gross, and he did not deserve to be released on Probation.

Final Decision: The revisional application was dismissed and the accused was directed to surrender to his bail bond and serve out the sentence.

ANIL K. SEN, J.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against the appellate order dated July 19, 1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1982. By the order impugned the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed an order dated October 5, 1982 of conviction under section 304a and section 279 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mayabundar in G. R. Case No. 276 of 1978. The accused is the petitioner before us in this revisional application.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the accused petitioner while driving a motor truck on July 12, 1978 at 10. 30 A. M. ran over a boy named Tannis Dung Dung aged about 9 years at Bijdera on his way, from Panchbati to Rangat. The boy died instantaneously. Such death according to the prosecution was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on the same day and on completion of investigation the police drew up the chargesheet on September 13, 1978. That chargesheet, however, was not filed before the learned Magistrate earlier than April 9, 1979 on which date the learned Magistrate took cognizance. At the trial the prosecution adduced evidence including the evidence of certain eye witnesses and the learned Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner under both sections and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. In doing so the learned Magistrate recorded a finding to the effect that the prosecution had duly proved the commission of the offence by the accused petitioner as he was charged for. The accused petitioner preferred an appeal but the learned Sessions Judge in dismissing the appeal upheld the order of conviction and sentence. Hence the present revisional application.

( 3 ) MR. Sardul Singh appearing in support of this revisional application has raised three points. In the first place, he has contended that the chargesheet having been filed beyond 180 days from the date of arrest the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance on such a chargesheet in view of section 167 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the entire trial hased on such cognizance is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the cases of Ram Kumar v. The State, Jay Shankar Jha v. The State and Ram Biksh Jadah v. The State of West Bengal and Ors, Secondly. It has been contended by Mr. Singh that on the evidence adduced the learned Magistrate should have held that the death was entirely accidental and was not due to any rash and negligent act on the part of the accused petitioner. Lastly reliance has been placed by Mr. Singh on section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in contending that in any event considering the fact that this was the first offence committed the accused petitioner should have been released of Probation of Good Conduct.

( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, has strongly contested the first and the second points raised by Mr. Singh. In his usual fairness the learned Public Prosecutor has left the third point raised by Mr. Singh to the discretion of this Court. In contesting the first point it has been contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that in this case investigation was completed, well within 180 days from the date of arrest when the chargesheet was drawn up on September 10, 1978 and hence there was no breach of section 167 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure- He has conceded that there was some delay in the matter of actual filing of to chargesheet before the learned Magistrate. But that according to him would not constitute infringement of section 167 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So far as the second point raised by Mr. Singh is concerned, it has been contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that same raises a _question of fact and in view of concurrent findings of the two courts below this court should not interfere wi








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top