Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D.N.Jha, J.
Krishna Lal Gulati
Versus
State
Decided On : 29 April 1975
CRIMINAL REVISION - SECTION 397(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - APPLICABILITY - INVESTIGATION - SCOPE - SECTION 156, 169, 170, 173 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1898 - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 551 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1898 - SCOPE - COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE - SECTION 403 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - APPLICABILITY - TENDER OF PARDON - SECTION 306, 307, 308 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 164, 364 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - APPLICABILITY - SECTION 24 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - APPLICABILITY - STATEMENT OF APPROVER - ADMISSIBILITY - SECTION 80, 533, 159, 160, 161 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - APPLICABILITY - TRANSFER OF CASE - INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the investigation of a murder, where the initial investigation resulted in a final report being submitted by the Investigating Officer. However, upon further direction from the Superintendent of Police, the investigation was reopened and a charge-sheet was filed. The accused challenged the legality of the reinvestigation and the subsequent charge-sheet, arguing that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Additionally, the accused contested the tender of pardon to an accomplice, Dwarka Prasad Pandey, and the recording of his statement by the Sessions Judge before granting the pardon.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the reinvestigation and the filing of the charge-sheet were legally permissible. The Magistrate had the authority to take cognizance of the offence, even though a final report had been submitted earlier. The court also found that the Sessions Judge had acted within his powers in recording the statement of Dwarka Prasad Pandey before granting the pardon. The court clarified that the statement was not a confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was not excluded from evidence under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the reinvestigation and filing of a charge-sheet after the submission of a final report were legally valid? 2. Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence after accepting the final report? 3. Whether the Sessions Judge erred in recording the statement of Dwarka Prasad Pandey before granting the pardon? 4. Whether the statement of Dwarka Prasad Pandey was admissible in evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The investigation of an offence is not limited to the initial steps taken by the Investigating Officer. It includes the formation of an opinion on the materials collected and the taking of steps for the filing of a charge-sheet. 2. A Magistrate has the discretion to take cognizance of an offence on the basis of a report, even if a final report had been submitted earlier. 3. The Sessions Judge has the authority to record the statement of a person who is to be granted pardon, in order to ascertain whether the person is making a full and true disclosure of the circumstances relating to the offence. 4. The statement of an approver, made before the grant of pardon, is admissible in evidence, subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition in part, directing the transfer of the case to another Sessions Judge for expeditious disposal, in the interest of justice.
( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision has been directed against the order dated 10-3-75 passed by Sri Chaman Singh, Sessions Judge, Gonda in Sessions Trial No. 171 of 1974, State v. Krishna Lal Gulati and Ors.
( 2 ) THE brief facts are that on 25-3-1969 one Mulk Raj Gulati had lodged a first information report at 6-50 P. M. mentioning that his son Tinku aged about 5 or 6 years had been missing since 2 P. M. on that date. It may be mentioned that no one was named as an accused in the said case. On 26-3-1969 the body of Tinku was recovered from a well and was sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. N. N. Dixit, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Gonda on 26-3-1969. The investigation was conducted by Sri Prem Narain Singh, Station Officer, Balrampur and on 18-7-1969, he submitted a report. This report was accepted on 8-7-1970 by the Judicial Officer, Balram-pur.
( 3 ) THE complainant Sri Mulk Raj Gulati made a complaint to the higher authorities about the investigation and orders were passed by the District Magistrate and conveyed by the Superintendent of Police to C. I. D. to reinvestigate. The Investigating Officer of Criminal investigation Department moved an application for permission to reinvestigate the case on 25-11-1972. The Judicial Officer, Balrampur permitted reinvestigation vide his order dated 25-11-1972.
3-A. It is stated in this revision petition that Sri Mulk Raj Gulati father of the deceased, was an influential and well to do person ,and after a lapse of over four years was able to concoct evidence of certain persons. The statement of Harihar Narain Misra was recorded under Section 164, Cr. P. C. On completing the investigation a charge-sheet under Sections 302/201/120-B, I. P. C. was filed by the Police against the applicant Krishna Lal Gulati, Dwarka Prasad Pandey and others. On 4-7-1974 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda committed all the four persons to the Court of Session for the said offences. Dwarka Prasad Pandey, one of the co-accused, applied before the learned Sessions Judge, Gonda for pardon and to be made an approver, Sri Chaman Singh, learned Sessions Judge recorded his statement on 27/28-11975. It is alleged that Dwarka Prasad Pandey all along was assisted by the Public Prosecutor in making a tutor-ed statement. The present applicant filed objections against the prayer of Dwarka. Prasad Pandey to be granted pardon and to be made an approver. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments, tendered pardon to Dwarka Prasad Pandey by means of the impugned order. It is in these circumstances that this revision has been filed before this Court.
( 4 ) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and the revision petition has been opposed. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that Mulk Raj Gulati had been carrying on business of rations and had also a transport agency adjacent to his shop. He also resided close to his ration shop. The boy Tinku used to sit at times with his father at the shop. On 25-3-1969 at about 2 P. M. a truck loaded with goods arrived from Lucknow and the goods were to be stocked in the godown. Tinku deceased came down from the upper storey and bunches of keys were given to the Palledars which were picked up by the boy and he went to the shop by a shorter route. After a short while Mulk Raj himself went to the shop to check the goods and he asked the Palledars to accommodate the goods in the other adjacent shop. The Palledars said that the keys were with the deceased Tinku who had not yet turned up. This caused anxiety and a search was made for Tinku but no clues could be had and ultimately a report was lodged as alleged. Crime No. 92 under Section 363, I. P. C. was registered and Sri Prem Narain Singh, Station Officer started the investigation. Next day at 8 A. M. as described the body of Tinku was found lying in the well which was taken out. The inquest report was prepared and the body was sent along with papers for post
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
