IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R.C. Patnaik, J.
KAMAL LOCHAN SEN - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - RESPONDENT
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 583 of 1982
Decided On : 18-10-1982
BAIL - INVESTIGATION - COMPLETION - CHARGE-SHEET - SECTION 173(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - INTERPRETATION - COURT ANALYSIS - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION:
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, arrested for an offence, filed a bail application under Section 167(2) Proviso of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming that the investigation was not completed within 90 days from the date of arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the charge-sheet filed on 30-1-1982 was a complete one, containing all the details required by Section 173(2)(i) and all statements and documents as required by Section 173(8) had been forwarded to the Magistrate.
Issues: Whether the charge-sheet filed on 30-1-1982 was a complete one, as required by Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that there is nothing like an incomplete or preliminary charge-sheet under the Code. The charge-sheet submitted under Section 173(2) is required to be submitted after completion of investigation for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b). Section 173(8) enables the investigating agency to submit a supplementary charge-sheet after obtaining further evidence, but it cannot be used to bypass the requirements of Section 173(2) and deprive an accused of their right to liberty.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Petitioner's bail application, holding that the investigation had been completed and the Petitioner was not entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Proviso.
JUDGMENT :
R.C. Patnaik, J. - This is an application for bail u/s 167(2) Proviso of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that investigation was not completed within the period of 90 days from the date of arrest of the Petitioner.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that though a charge-sheet was filed on 30-1-1982 that was before the completion of investigation and the submission of the said charge-sheet not being one contemplated by Section 173(2) read with Section 2(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner was entitled to be released on bail. He strenuously urged that though the charge-sheet was filed on 30-1-1982 and cognizance was taken, investigation had not been completed as would be evident from the statement contained in the charge-sheet itself.
3. He drew only attention to several decisions T.V. Sarma Vs. Smt. Turgakamala Devi and Others Harichand & Raj Pal v. State ILR (1977) Del 267, Suresh Singh v. The State and Ors. 1978 Cri. L.J. 58, Resham Lal Yadav and Others Vs. The State of Bihar, and Satya Narain Musadi and Others Vs. State of Bihar. The learned Standing Counsel in answer, submitted that the charge-sheet was a complete one. It contained the statements required by Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and statements recorded u/s 161 and all documents had been forwarded to the Magistrate along with the report as required by Sub-section (5) of Section 173 and, in fact by order dated 30-1-1982 the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate had directed preparation of copies of such documents for furnishing them to the accused. The statement in the charge-sheet was under a misconception that as the absconding accused had not been apprehended, the investigation was not complete.
4. The relevant provision may now be seen. Section 2(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines a police report as follows:
(r) "police report" means a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under Sub-section (2) of Section 173.
The relevant provisions in Section 173 are:
173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation:
(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
(2)(i) As soon as it is completed the officer-in-charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating-
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody u/s 170.
(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.
(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which Section 170 applies the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report
(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation;
(b) the statements recorded u/s 161 of all the person whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under Sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and whereupon such investigation, the officer-in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of Sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may apply in r
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.