Back
N.S.HEGDE, B.P.SINGH
Superintendent of Police, C. B. I. – Appellant
Versus
Tapan Kr. Singh – Respondent
What is the legal position regarding whether a General Diary (G.D.) Entry can be treated as a First Information Report (F.I.R.) in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act? What are the requirements for information to be considered sufficient to disclose the commission of a cognizable offence for the purpose of initiating an investigation? What is the legal consequence when a High Court quashes an investigation and directs the return of seized property on the ground that the G.D. Entry did not disclose a cognizable offence?
Key Points: - The Supreme Court held that a G.D. Entry may be treated as a First Information Report if it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, even if the informant does not reproduce the exact language of the statute. (!) (!) (!) - The Court ruled that an F.I.R. is not required to be an encyclopedia disclosing all facts or ingredients of the offence; it is sufficient if the information provides a basis for the police officer to reasonably suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. (!) (!) - The High Court erred in quashing the investigation and directing the return of seized money because the G.D. Entry clearly alleged the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which spells out the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (!) (!) - It is premature to consider procedural defects regarding search and seizure or the specific section mentioned in the F.I.R. at the revisional stage; such matters must be decided by the Court trying the accused during the trial. (!) (!) - The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellants (CBI) were directed to proceed with the investigation in accordance with the law. (!) (!) - The Court explicitly stated that its observations do not express an opinion on the merit or truthfulness of the allegations, but only on the justification for initiating the investigation. (!)
JUDGMENT
B.P. Singh, J.-The Union of India, Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation and other officers of the said Bureau have come up in appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta dated February 28, 1992 in Criminal Revision No. 1913 of 1990 whereby the High Court while allowing the revision petition quashed the investigation on the basis of G.D. Entry No. 681 as also the First Information Report recorded on October 20, 1990. It further quashed R.C. Case No. 51 of 1990 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently it also quashed the search and seizure effected on October 18, 1990 and directed that the money and articles seized be returned to the person from whom they were seized.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
On October 17, 1990 the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (S.P.E.) (A.C.B.). Calcutta received information from reliable source on telephone that respondent, who was then Director (Personnel), Eastern Coal Fields Limited, was a corrupt officer in the habit of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, had demanded and accepted
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
