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

1964 Supreme(Guj) 39

J.B.MEHTA, B.J.DIVAN
VAJSI DEVA MEHR – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: A.D.DESAI, DAULAT C.TRIVEDI, S.P.SHETH

B. J. DIVAN, J. B. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) PAUSING hero it is important to note that in the instant case F. I. R. Ex. 5 is not a statement giving information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence as contemplated by sec. 154 Criminal Procedure Code. It is well settled law that if the statement has been recorded by the police as contemplated by sec. 154 Criminal Procedure Code that statement cannot be said to be recorded in the course of the investigation of the case and therefore would not be hit by the provisions of sec. 162 Criminal Procedure Code as such a statement is not a statement recorded in the course of investigation. Such statements recorded in accordance with the provisions of sec. 154 are popularly referred to as first information reports. In the instant case what we find is that head constable Abakader received a telephone message at about 1-20 P. M. on February 13 1961 This head constable was in charge of the police station at the time when the telephone message was received and he made entry No. 7 in the police station diary of Porbandar Police Station. Entry No. 7 Ex. 41 shows that driver Hamir rang up from phone No. 99 that one man was assaulted by means of an ax



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top