Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Shailesh Kumar VS State Of U. P. (Now State Of Uttarakhand)...

Checking relevance for Shamshul Kanwar VS State Of U. P. ...

Shamshul Kanwar VS State Of U. P. - 1995 0 Supreme(SC) 644 : The failure to present or maintain entries in the general diary as required under Section 172 Cr. P.C. does not render the evidence of the police officer inadmissible. The breach of Section 172 does not amount to an illegality or irregularity that vitiates the trial. The court may draw inferences from the absence of diary entries, but such absence does not automatically affect the admissibility of evidence. The primary duty of the police is to collect and sift evidence, and the diary is a record of the investigation process, not substantive evidence. The court may use the diary only to aid in the inquiry or trial, not as evidence, and its absence does not invalidate the trial proceedings.Checking relevance for State by Lokayuktha Police VS H. Srinivas...

State by Lokayuktha Police VS H. Srinivas - 2018 5 Supreme 374 : The absence of entries in the General Diary concerning the preliminary enquiry would not be per se illegal, unless at the time of trial some grave prejudice going to the root of the matter is shown to exist. The failure to record preliminary enquiry in the General Diary does not automatically vitiate the entire proceeding, especially when the investigation is conducted in accordance with law and no substantial prejudice is demonstrated. The Court emphasized that such irregularities in documentation do not result in quashing of FIRs or proceedings unless they affect the fairness of the trial or the rights of the accused. The General Diary is a record of important daily events in a police station, including FIRs, but its absence in recording preliminary enquiries is not fatal to the prosecution if no grave prejudice is shown.Checking relevance for Balakram VS State of Uttarakhand...

Balakram VS State of Uttarakhand - 2017 4 Supreme 68 : The effect of not presenting general diary entries is that the accused cannot use the police diary to contradict any witness other than the police officer who made the entries. The entries in the police diary cannot be used by the accused, even if obtained under the Right to Information Act, unless the court uses them to contradict the investigating officer or the officer uses them to refresh his memory. The court has the unfettered power to examine the diary for its own use, but the accused has no right to inspect or produce it. The confidentiality of investigation records is maintained to protect informants and ensure the integrity of the investigative process. Therefore, failure to present general diary entries does not prejudice the accused, as the right to access them is strictly limited and not available for general use in cross-examination.Checking relevance for Dharam Singh VS State Of U. P. ...

Dharam Singh VS State Of U. P. - 1962 0 Supreme(SC) 100 : The omission of entries in the duty register at the police outpost regarding the arrival and departure of police officers, including the Sub-Inspector and Head Constable, does not discredit the entire prosecution evidence about the incident and the course of the investigation. The court notes that such entries are not always required, particularly for casual visits or routine returns to quarters, and that entries are typically made only when an officer''''s presence is connected to specific duties. Therefore, the failure to present or produce general diary entries does not undermine the overall credibility of the prosecution''''s case.Checking relevance for Saravanan VS State Represented through the Inspector of Police, Vaipoor...

Saravanan VS State Represented through the Inspector of Police, Vaipoor - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 782 : The effect of not presenting the General Diary entries is that it may lead to the suppression of the FIR registration, as the General Diary is crucial for establishing the timing and nature of the FIR registration. The court emphasized that the production of the General Diary is necessary to determine if an FIR registered on a specific date was suppressed and another FIR was registered later. The General Diary, unlike the Case Diary, contains comprehensive details of all cases registered in a police station and stands in a higher pedestal due to its chronological and comprehensive nature. However, under Section 172(3) Cr.P.C., the accused is not entitled to demand the General Diary unless it falls within the scope of this provision. The court held that the bar under Section 172 Cr.P.C. applies equally to the General Diary, and its entries cannot be used as substantive or corroborative evidence. The failure to produce the General Diary may therefore hinder the court’s ability to verify the authenticity and sequence of FIR registrations, potentially affecting the fairness of the trial.

• Effect of Not Presenting the General Diary Entries
• The General Diary is a chronological record maintained by police, containing details of daily proceedings and incidents. Its copies are typically not sent to judicial magistrates but are available to superior police officers. The diary is distinct from case diaries maintained by investigating officers.
• In criminal proceedings, the diary's entries are generally used to aid inquiries or trials (Section 172 Cr.P.C.), not as direct evidence. Courts have held that the diary's entries do not automatically constitute compliance with FIR registration requirements or serve as evidence of offences unless specifically admitted.
• Summoning the General Diary requires proper procedure; courts have noted restrictions under Section 172 Cr.P.C. against indiscriminate use of the diary in evidence, emphasizing its auxiliary role rather than as substantive proof.
• In departmental or disciplinary proceedings, failure to present or consider the General Diary can prejudice the accused, especially if the diary contains relevant entries that could support or refute allegations. For instance, non-disclosure or non-summoning of the diary may lead to claims of prejudice or procedural irregularity.
• Several judgments highlight that the absence of the General Diary or failure to produce it when relevant can compromise the fairness of proceedings, but its mere non-presentation does not automatically invalidate the process unless it prejudices the concerned party.

• References:

  • P. Jeyasuresh Jayaraj, The Managing Trustee, Keswick Public School vs The Managing Director, M/s. Cox and Kings Limited - Consumer State, Shailesh Kumar VS State Of U. P. (Now State Of Uttarakhand) - Supreme Court, Saravanan VS State Represented through the Inspector of Police, Vaipoor - Madras, Saibal Shobhan Deb S/o Lt. Shekhar Sobhan Deb VS Assam Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited Rep. By The Chairman - Gauhati, Sheshnath Singh alias Shishu VS State of U. P. - Allahabad, Miran Prasad Yadav Son Of Late Rishu Prasad Yadav VS State Of Bihar - Patna

• Analysis and Conclusion

• The non-presentation of the General Diary entries can have significant procedural implications, especially in criminal investigations and departmental inquiries. Its absence may hinder the accused's ability to challenge evidence or establish facts, potentially leading to claims of prejudice.
• However, courts generally recognize that the diary functions as an auxiliary record and that its non-disclosure alone does not automatically vitiate proceedings unless it results in substantive prejudice or violates principles of natural justice.
• Proper procedural safeguards, including summoning and examining the diary when relevant, are essential to ensure fairness. Failure to do so can be grounds for challenging the legality or fairness of proceedings but must be evaluated in context.