HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
P. Sathish Kumar
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep By Its Inspector of Police
CRL.O.P.No. 2954 of 2014
Decided on: 13-02-2014
Fair Trial - Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 154 and 155 of the Code - Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and Others (2013) - R.P.Kapur Vs. Sardar Pratap Singh (AIR 1961 SC 1117) - Sections 420, 406, 465, 467 r/w 34 of IPC - Delay in Case Registration and Investigation
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Team Leader in a private company, was involved in a case where a bank was allegedly cheated. The case took a long time to be registered and investigated, resulting in the loss of public money and the escape of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in registering the case amounted to a denial of fair trial to the complainant. It also highlighted the importance of promptly registering cases at the police station level and criticized the practice of bypassing the officer-in-charge of the police station.
Issues: Delay in case registration and investigation, denial of fair trial, responsibility for lapses in the process
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for prompt registration of cases at the police station level and criticized the practice of bypassing the officer-in-charge of the police station. It also highlighted the obligations of the police to ensure fair investigation and the consequences of deviating from these obligations.
Final Decision: The criminal original petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail.
S. Nagamuthu. J.
1. The salutary concept of “Fair Trial” which has received recognition under the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948” and guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has received wider interpretation at the hands of the Hon'ble Supreme Court so as to include fair investigation of a crime as well. Thus, prompt registration of a case by a competent police officer followed by swift investigation resulting in a quick final report are all concomitants of a fair trial. To be fair to the victim, fair to the accused and fair to the society at large are the Constitutional obligations of the police. If there is any deviance, it is likely to result in failure of justice. That is the reason why a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and Others reported in 2013 (6) CTC 353 has issued as many as eight directions in the matter of registration of a case. But, the instant case illustrates as to how an information, promptly launched, has taken a long journey, changing many hands and at last landed in the hands of a Sub-Inspector of Police for investigation after ten months of its launching. Now let us trace the route and the root cause.
2. The petitioner, during the relevant period was working as a Team Leader in a private concern known as M/s.A.I.E. Cars, who is a dealer of Maruthi Cars. The first accused Mr.P.J.Balaguru had approached the petitioner company to purchase a Maruthi car. He obtained quotation for a car so as to arrange for loan from a bank. Accordingly the first accused applied for loan with the Karnataka Bank, West Mambalam Branch. The bank sanctioned loan for the same to the tune of Rs.8,39,000/- on 13.09.2012. The bank issued a demand draft in favour of M/s A.I.E. Cars viz., the petitioner. As per the arrangement the vehicle should be sold in the name of the first accused and the same should be hypothecated in favour of the complainant bank after it is registered under the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. After availing the loan, neither the first accused nor the petitioner herein had taken any interest to produce copies of the registration certificate of the car, insurance certificate and other documents. When the bank demanded the first accused and the petitioner for those documents, a copy of the registration certificate of the car bearing registration No.TN-10-AJ-4703, registered in the name of the first accused was e-mailed. But in the said registration certificate there was no hypothecation endorsement in favour of the bank. When the bank further enquired, it came to know that the demand draft was not presented for collection in the account of the dealer viz., AIE Cars, instead a separate account had been opened in a hurried manner in the State Bank of India, Shastri Nagar Branch, Adyar in the name of AIE Cars by one Mr.V.G.Arun and the demand draft was presented. The amount due under the demand draft was thereafter withdrawn from the said account. But the fact remains that the same was not paid to the actual dealer of the car viz., AIE Cars, in which the petitioner herein was a team leader.
4. According to the further case of the prosecution, the bank has been cheated to the tune of Rs.8,39,000/- by the accused 1, 2 and the petitioner. With these serious allegations making out cognizable offences the Branch Manager of the Karnataka Bank Limited rushed to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City on 11.01.2013 and submitted a written information hoping that prompt action would be taken immediately to register a case and to investigate. But it did not happen soon and it all happened in the following manner:-
(i) On 11.01.2013, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai forwarded the information to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore.
(ii) The Joint Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore forwarded the information on the same day to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar, Chennai.
(iii) The Deputy Commissio
R.P.Kapur Vs. Sardar Pratap Singh reported in (AIR 1961 SC 1117).
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.