Author

Karan Ahluwalia

Browsing
In Articles

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COGNIZABLE AND NON – COGNIZABLE OFFENCES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE INVESTIGATING POWERS OF THE POLICE

By

By Karan Ahluwalia (4th Year Student, GNLU Gandhinagar)

INTRODUCTION

One of the most important classifications of offences in India under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”), is of them being either Cognizable or Non-Cognizable. Cognizable offences are those which are indicated as such under the First Schedule of the Code and in relation to which, the Police are empowered to arrest a person without a warrant. Non-Cognizable offences on the other hand, are of a smaller degree of severity. Their prevention and detection, while important, does not warrant the conferment of sweeping investigative powers upon investigative agencies.

There are two important reasons for this distinction, both of which are rooted in reality:

a. All crimes cannot be prevented, neither can all criminals be apprehended. Therefore, a greater social purpose is served by prosecuting on priority, serious crimes that threaten the very social fabric of society. Crimes such as Sexual offences, Murder, Kidnapping, Sedition etc., all of which are Cognizable.

b. Corruption is endemic amongst ground-level functionaries of the government, an ill to which even investigating agencies are not immune. To prevent vexation of citizens at the hands of these functionaries, conferment of investigative powers in relation to Non-Cognizable offences is made conditional upon fulfilment of certain procedural safeguards that attempt to balance the competing interests of maximization of individual liberty and minimization of crime.

STATUTORY POWERS OF INVESTIGATION

Chapter XII of the Code delineates powers of the Police with respect to investigation of offences. At the outset, §154 of the Code requires Police officers to reduce into writing, all information received by them which discloses the possible commission of a Cognizable offence.

Section 154.  Information in cognizable cases.

(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf:

Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer:

Provided further that-

(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such persons choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;

(b) the recording of such information shall be videographed;

(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1)shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

This provision is mandatory- not only does it prevent the Police from conducting any preliminary investigation into the alleged offence before registering a First Information Report (“FIR”), but it also does not require them to be satisfied with the reasonableness and credibility of the information received therein [Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC 187]. Once such an FIR is registered, the criminal justice machinery is set into motion and the Police investigate the alleged offence under §156 of the Code. “Investigation” under the Code involves proceeding to the spot of the crime, ascertaining the facts and circumstances of the case, collection of physical evidence, examination of various persons including the accused, discovery and arrest of suspects and formation of an opinion with regard to guilt of the person accused [H.N. Rishbad v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196].

On the other hand, when the contents of the information supplied to the Police officer disclose the possible commission of a non-Cognizable offence, §155 of the Code becomes applicable.

Section 155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases.

(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.

(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.

(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.

(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.

It requires the Police officer to note down such information in format as specified for that purpose and present it before a Magistrate who is empowered to try such case or commit it to trial. Investigation into the alleged offence can only be started by the Police once the aforementioned Magistrate has made an order to that effect. It is imperative to note that prior to the making of such order, the Police officer has no power to investigate the offence as has been reiterated by courts on multiple occasions [Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, MANU/SC/0080/1996; Sudarshan Manchanda v. State of Karnataka, 1979 SCC OnLine Kar 192; Siddanagouda v. State of Karnataka, MANU/KA/0139/1997]. If the Police officer proceeds to investigate the offence despite this express bar and without an order of the Magistrate to that effect, the investigation conducted would be devoid of legal sanctity for lack of jurisdiction- any charges framed as a result would be liable to be quashed by the concerned High Court [Jugal Kishore v. State, 1972 Cr. L.J. 371]. However, any evidence collected in this ill-advised exercise may still be accepted by a Court if it is shown to be relevant and substantial despite the fact that it was obtained illegally [Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 10 SCC 591].

Once an order to investigate the alleged offence has been made by the concerned Magistrate, the Police officer is vested with the same powers of investigation as he/she is in respect to Cognizable offences, save for the power to arrest a person without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant as provided under §41 of the Code. Such an investigation will proceed as per §156 of the Code, which is also the provision under which investigations are carried out by Police officers suo motu in the case of Cognizable offences. It is also important to note that when the information provided to the Police officer discloses the commission of Cognizable as well as Non-Cognizable offences arising out of the same factual matrix, they are entitled to treat all the Non-Cognizable offences as if they had been Cognizable offences and shall proceed to investigate them forthwith without waiting for an order of the Magistrate in that regard as per sub-section 4 of §155 of the Code.

CASE LAWS

Fundamental jurisprudence on FIRs was laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the landmark case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (supra). In this case, the Petitioner attempted to lodge an FIR concerning the kidnapping of her daughter which was refused by the local police station. On such refusal she approached the Superintendent of Police, after which an FIR was lodged but no action was taken thereafter. Aggrieved by this situation, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any like relief to secure her daughter. The Hon’ble Court said that principles of democracy and freedom require timely filing of FIRs so that instances of commission of Cognizable as well as non-Cognizable offences come to the notice of the Subordinate Judiciary. If the information provided to the Police officer clearly points towards the commission of a Cognizable offence, the officer has no choice but to register the FIR and proceed with the investigation. However, if on the basis of the information so supplied, it is not clear whether or not the offence complained of is Cognizable or not, then the Police is empowered to conduct a preliminary investigation only for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the offence is Cognizable. It also re-iterated that if the information received clearly points towards the commission of a cognizable offence, the Police are not required to inquire into the intention of the complainant or the existence of any mala fides since it would be open to the Police to prosecute the complainant in case the information is found to be false.

In H.N. Rishbad v. State of Delhi (supra), proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 had been instituted against two government employees- these proceedings were quashed by a Special Judge and this quashing was set aside by the Hon’ble Punjab High Court (as it then was). Thereafter this case came before the Hon’ble Apex Court via a Special Leave Petition. The Court laid down the law with regard to investigations into non-Cognizable offences and non-compliance with the mandatory provisions discussed previously. It said that while investigations carried out in breach of a mandatory statutory provisions (such as the requirement of Magisterial orders to investigate Non-Cognizable Offences) would ordinarily be illegal, however- such illegality cannot be allowed to vitiate the validity of the resulting trial unless it can be shown that the defects of the investigation caused a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, if this defect is brought to the notice of the court at a sufficiently-early stage- steps can be taken to rectify the same.

In Sudarshan Manchanda v. State of Karnataka (supra), the transportation godown of the Petitioner caught fire and was attended to by the Karnataka Fire Force as well as the local Police force as per protocol. On reaching the scene of the fire, the Police officer-in-charge was informed by the firefighting staff that the goods stored in the godown were done so in violation of §13 of the Karnataka Fire Force Act, 1964 which made the act a non-cognizable offence. The details of the offence were duly noted and sent to a Magistrate so that investigation could be started into the offence. However, before the requisite permission could be obtained, Police officers from the local Police station arrived at the godown and began their preliminary investigation. An order for the investigation was received by them from the Magistrate only on the following day. The Petitioners in this case assailed the very jurisdiction of the Police to investigate the matter before such permission was obtained and therefore sough non-reliance on the evidence collected as a result. On the other hand, the state contended that since permission was granted for the investigation shortly thereafter, the defect, if any, stood cured. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that an investigation carried out in violation of a mandatory provision of the Code, would be one that was carried out without jurisdiction and subsequent grant of permission by the Magistrate in that regard would not cure the defective investigation.

CONCLUSION

In light of the provisions and jurisprudence discussed previously, we must now revisit an idea expressed in the introduction. The Criminal Justice system in any state is concerned inter alia with the maintenance of a very fine balance between maximization of individual liberty and minimization of crime. In doing so, the same body of criminal law must act both as a shield and as a sword. As a shield it must protect innocent citizens from the excessiveness and potential arbitrariness of state machinery. As a sword it must guide instrumentalities of the state in their pursuit to create social harmony and maintain law and order so that higher goals of collective and individual existence can be realised. §s 154 and 155 of the Code are perfect examples of the same.

Let us first consider the consequences of bestowing untrammelled investigative powers upon investigating agencies. Doing so creates fertile grounds for corruption and consequent vexation of innocent citizens at the hands of anti-social elements both- in the government as well as outside it. Filing poorly-substantiated cases against business competitors, political rivals, contesting family members etc. would become daily occurrence. The law cannot be used to perpetuate injustice, nor can its provisions be perverted to serve narrow, malevolent interests.

It may be argued that since it is open to the Police to prosecute persons who knowingly supply false information to them under §182 of the Indian Penal Code,186- this possible-menace of false-complaints could be curtailed to a large extent. However, ground realities of our criminal justice system would impede any attempts to bring transparency to an otherwise opaque machinery.

This perhaps justifies the differential treatment given Cognizable and Non-Cognizable under the Code. While this results in some measure of the delay in dealing with cases of Non-Cognizable offences, such is the price of our liberty.

Continue Reading
By
In Criminal Procedure

THE DISCRETION TO ARREST WITH POLICE – A PERSPECTIVE FROM THE EXPERIENCES OF A PRACTISING LAWYER

By ,

The discretion to arrest and put an accused behind bars in an offence which is cognizable and non – bailable, is possibly the most powerful right which the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives to police officers. The rationale behind giving such power to a police officer is that during the course of investigation, the accused should not interfere with the process of a fair and independent investigation. The custody of the accused with the police also aids the police in reconstructing the crime scene and make recoveries of the material which may have been involved in committing the offence. Furthermore, by way of arrest, the accused is incapacitated from committing any other offence during the period of investigation. However, the question remains as to whether “arrest” is the only way in which the above-mentioned objectives can be attained during the pendency of an investigation, or, should the police trust the alleged accused persons that they shall themselves co – operate in aiding the investigation and not disturb the investigation process by influencing potential witnesses etc.

The reporting of a crime can be done by any person who may or may not be a victim of that crime. If the local police station finds prima facie truth in the allegations of the complainant, an FIR (First Information Report) is lodged. The SHO (Station House Officer) deputes an IO (Investigating Officer) to every FIR who then goes on to investigate the alleged offence under the said FIR. It is this IO who has the power and discretion to arrest the accused who has been alleged of committing the crime. The jurisprudence on the powers and discretion of the IO to arrest the accused has evolved over a period of time.

The experience of the courts, more particularly the Hon`ble Supreme Court has not been very pleasant in so far as the use of this power to arrest by the IOs is concerned. The Hon`ble Supreme Court has time and again deprecated the practice adopted by the police where they make arrests in cases where the offence is either not very heinous or prima facie not made out from the allegations made in the criminal complaint. It cannot be denied that the enormous discretion given to the police officers has also led to massive corruption and abuse of this discretion by the police officers. It is common knowledge that a lot of investigating officers demand bribe / other favors from the accused to not arrest them post the lodging of the FIR. Interestingly, it is again known to everyone that many investigating officers also demand bribe/other favors from the complainant to make an arrest of the alleged accused. This is especially common in white collar crimes like cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust etc. wherein the complainant is confident that an arrest of the accused will lead to a settlement of the matter between the parties thereby providing the complainant with the money/articles/goods which has been alleged to have been cheated or siphoned off by the accused.

COGNIZABLE OFFENCES CARRYING SEVEN OR LESS THAN SEVEN YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT

Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the principal section which governs the powers of the police officer to make an arrest of an accused person wherein the allegation is that a cognizable has been committed by the accused person. Section 41(1)(a) as amended in 2009 provides that any police officer may make an arrest without a warrant if the accused has committed a cognizable offence in the presence of a police officer. Whether or not an offence is cognizable or non – cognizable can be easily discerned by any person from Schedule I annexed to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 41(1)(b) is bifurcated into two parts i.e. arrests made in cases where the alleged cognizable offence carries seven or less than seven years of imprisonment and arrests made in cases where the alleged cognizable offence carries more than seven years of imprisonment. Through the 2009 amendment, the legislature has circumscribed the discretion of the investigating officers to make arrests in cases where the alleged cognizable offence carries seven or less than seven years of imprisonment. Section 41(1)(b) clearly provides that in such cases where the cognizable offence carries seven or less than seven years of imprisonment, a police officer can make an arrest without warrant only if the following conditions are satisfied:

(i) the police officer has “reason to believe” on the basis of such complaint/information that such person has committed the said offence

(ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary—

(a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or

(b) for proper investigation of the offence; or

(c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or

(d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or

(e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured.

The police officer is also mandated under law to write his reasons in the case diary as to why he/she feels that the above-mentioned criterions are being fulfilled in the case and hence arrest is being effected. Furthermore, Section 41A provides that in all cases where the police officer has after applying the criterions prescribed under Section 41(1)(b) decided that the arrest is not required, he/ she shall issue notice of appearance under Section 41A to the accused so that the accused can join the investigation and provide answers to the questions raised by the police officer.

My experience in handling criminal investigations on behalf of the accused in the past nine years tells me that rarely are the above-mentioned criterions prescribed under Section 41(1)(b) are followed in cases where the alleged offence carries a punishment of less than seven years. It is important to be noted that Section 41(1)(b) merely circumscribes the discretion of the police officer in arresting the accused for alleged cognizable offences which carry a punishment of seven or less than seven years. The discretion while circumscribed and guided through this provision does not completely take away the powers of the police officer to arrest an accused under this category of cases. The Supreme Court and other High Courts of our country have time and again reminded the investigating officers and police force of our country to apply their mind before making arrests in offences which carry a sentence of seven or less than seven years [See Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014 (Supreme Court); Rajesh Sharma v. State of UP, AIR 2007 SC 3869]. But, from a more practical perspective, any practicing criminal lawyer of our country would confirm that the investigating officer rarely follows the mandate of Section 41(1)(b) in a meticulous manner.

The power/discretion to arrest or not to arrest as provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has often resulted in its abuse by the police officer. Arrest in India or for that matter any society across the world carries with it extremely strong prejudice and stigma. Even a single day of arrest can potentially demoralize and stigmatize a respectable individual of our society for his / her entire life. Hence, this power which lies with the investigating officers is expected to be used with utmost caution and by following the mandate of the law in the strictest sense. The criminal justice system in India is far from being ideal today in the present situation as it exists in 2021. Time and again it is seen by the stakeholders of the criminal justice system that the police officers abuse this discretion by taking bribe/favors from the complainant or the accused. The higher the stakes involved under the lodged FIR, the higher would be the involved corruption. The alleged accused also wants to indulge in the act of corruption because he / she feels that if they get arrested then they will be going through the ordeal of being in prison and also would have to eventually pay up to the defence lawyers for securing a bail for them. Hence, simply bribing the police officer and preventing any possible arrest may end up being a more feasible option. It will be important for me to caveat here that while abuse of arrest powers by police officers is common, there are independent and honest police officers who conduct absolutely neutral and impartial investigation on the basis of the merits of the case.

COGNIZABLE OFFENCES CARRYING MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT

Section 41(ba) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to all cases where the alleged offence carries more than seven years of imprisonment. This provision is much less complicated and fairly straightforward as it provides relatively less discretion to the investigating officer while making arrests in cognizable offences which carry more than seven years of imprisonment. The provision does not provide too many yardsticks on the basis of which an investigating officer can evaluate whether or not to make an arrest.

This provision simply says that any police officer may make an arrest where the police officer has received credible information that the accused has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to more than seven years and the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of that information that such person has committed the said offence. Hence, a bare perusal of the provision shall highlight that once the police officer is convinced on a prima facie basis that the accused has committed the offence, the police officer will be well within his/her rights to make an arrest of the accused. Having said this, it is most definitely not a matter of practice that in

all cases where the alleged cognizable offence carries more than seven years of sentence would the police officer arrest the accused. The police officer in a lot of cases refuses to exercise its power to arrest (and rightfully so) when he / she feels that the criminal complaint on the basis of which the FIR is lodged is false and devoid of merits. Furthermore, in cases like recovery of money, alleged forgery, alleged cheating etc. where the dispute has a civil flavor, the police officers are careful before making any arrests even while the offences may carry a sentence of more than seven years. Needless to mention, that since this provision also provides discretion to the police officers, it has been time and again misused for securing illegal favors / bribe by the police officers.

The law regulating arrests is still in developing stages in India. There is a lot more that needs to be done in order to ensure that no wrongful arrests may take place or no alleged accused may go without being arrested simply because of the whims and fancies of the police officers. The situation can improve in 2 ways. Firstly, the police officers should start applying the mandate of law in a stricter manner wherein they actually adhere to the check list provided under Section 41(1)(b) before making an arrest in all cases where the offence carries a sentence of seven or less than seven years. Secondly, the legislature or the Hon`ble Supreme Court may prescribe certain cases (of less heinous nature) where the discretion is completely removed thereby giving certainty to citizens of our country and reducing the powers of police officers. Any change made in the law would have to examined while keeping in mind the delicate balance between providing right of personal liberty to individuals and right of life in a peaceful and crime free society of the public at large.

Continue Reading
By ,
In Articles

IMPORTANCE OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE CRPC – A VIEW FROM THE EYES OF A DEFENCE COUNSEL

By

This article is being written with the purpose of highlighting the importance of the stage of the Statement of Accused during the course of a Criminal Trial. The article shall begin by placing the stage of the Statement of Accused in a chronological context of the Criminal Trial. Subsequently, the article shall reproduce and dissect the provision threadbare to explain the key legislative features of the same. Lastly, the article shall highlight the important judicial pronouncements of the Hon`ble Supreme Court / High Court on this Section which has a day to day bearing in the interpretation and applicability of this Section.

A typical Criminal Investigation is commenced with the lodging of the First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (CrPC). An Investigating Officer is deputed by the Police Station at which the FIR is lodged. The Investigating Officer conducts the investigation during the course of which he / she collects statements of material witnesses, incriminating material etc and inevitably in most cases files a Charge sheet before a competent Court of Law under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. This Charge sheet is taken Cognizance upon by a competent Magistrate having appropriate territorial jurisdiction under Section 190 (b) of the CrPC. The criminal proceedings post taking of cognizance is then tried by the Magistrate or committed to a competent Sessions Court depending on the nature of the offence. The Charge is framed by the concerned Court and trial is commenced. The Prosecution Evidence is led by the Prosecutor during which all the material witnesses are introduced, examined in chief, cross examined etc. and discharged. The Prosecution exhibits material documents and seized material during the Prosecution evidence.

It is at this stage that the application of Section 313 of the CrPC comes into play. It will be apposite for me to reproduce the bare text of the Section here to explain the legislative text of this section:

Section 313 – Power to examine the accused

(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court—
(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;
(b) shall after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence question him generally on the case:
Provided that in a summons-case where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).
(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under subsection (1).
(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such question, or by giving false answers to them.
(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he had committed.
(5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.

A bare reading of Section 313(1)(b) as mentioned above shall highlight the mandate of law that the accused person is to be examined by the Trial Court for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him. This stage “shall” come after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before the accused is called on for his defence evidence. Both the text of the section and practice of Criminal Law confirms that the statement of the accused is taken post the recording of the entire Prosecution Evidence. This enables the Trial Court to put all the incriminating material before the accused person (usually by way of detailed questions prepared by the Trial Court) and seek his explanation and answers on the same.

The Supreme Court in Tara Singh v. State2 held that the Trial Court has the duty to state all the circumstances and evidence against the accused under Section 342 (corresponding provision in the Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1898) for enabling the accused to explain such circumstances and evidence. The Court further held that that if the accused has given reasonable explanations, the same must be taken into consideration by the Trial Court- the failure of which would constitute a grave defect in the judgment. In Hate Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat,  the Court observed, “The statements of the accused recorded by the committing Magistrate and the Sessions Judge are intended in India to take the place of what in England and in America he would be free to state on his own way in the witness box [and that] they have to be received in evidence and treated as evidence and be duly considered at the trial.” In Shivaji SahabraoBobade v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that every inculpatory evidentiary material must be put to the accused for his explanation, and “the court must ordinarily eschew such material from consideration” which has not been put to the accused. The Court further held an omission to put such material to the accused does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless the accused is able to establish that he has been prejudiced by such omission. Similar conclusion was drawn by the Court in S. Harnam Singh v. State (Delhi Admin) in which it was also observed that if an irregularity under Section 342 does not occasion a failure of justice, the same is curable.

The Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra transported the principle- circumstances which are not put to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 cannot be taken into consideration by the Court- to Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The erudite observation of the Court in Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra needs to reproduced, as follows:

The word “generally” in sub-section (1)(b) does not limit the nature of the questioning to one or more questions of a general nature relating to the case, but it means that the question should relate to the whole case generally and should also be limited to any particular part or parts of it. The question must be framed in such a way as to enable the accused to know what he is to explain, what are the circumstances which are against him and for which an explanation is needed. The whole object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him and that the questions must be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. A conviction based on the accused’s failure to explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law. The whole object of enacting Section 313 of the Code was that the attention of the accused should be drawn to the specific points in the charge and in the evidence on which the prosecution claims that the case is made out against the accused so that he may be able to give such explanation as he desires to give.

 The above reproduced observation was followed and quoted with approval in Shaikh Maqsood v. State of Maharashtra and Ranvir Yadav v. State of Bihar. Further, in Asraf Ali v. State of Assam, it was observed that the main object of Section 313 is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused. In Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, the Court observed that Section 313 is founded on one of the principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem. The Court also observed that Section 313 is of heightened relevance in a case circumstantial evidence so as to establish if the chain of circumstances is complete or not. It was further observed that the statement under Section 313 “cannot be treated as evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, as the accused cannot be cross-examined with reference to such statement.” Even recently in Samuel Hasque v. State of Assam, the Court observed, “It is trite to say that…the incriminating material is to be put to the accused so the accused gets a fair chance to defend himself. This is in recognition of the principles of audi alteram partem.”

Interestingly, Section 313(2) also very clearly prescribes that no oath shall be examined to the accused person when he / she is being examined under Section 313(1) by the Court. This provision is clearly by way of abundant caution in order to fulfil the fundamental right enshrined under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Some of the instances in which this clause has been interpreted is as follows

As a matter of defence strategy, in my opinion, it is best to answer specifically as many questions as maybe possible under Section 313 of the CrPC. Needless to mention that the accused does have a right to remain silent and hence, he or she can simply deny or leave unexplained any particular question raised under Section 313 of the CrPC. However, this option of avoiding or remaining silent on a specific assertion / material put forth before the accused should be exercised most sparingly. It is trite that nonanswering or evading incriminating material put under Section 313 of the CrPC would only lead to an adverse inference drawn by the Court during the course of the final arguments.

Being situated in Delhi, I have had the good fortune of conducting both criminal trials at Trial Courts and arguing appeals before the Supreme Court. On many occasions while watching appellate proceedings in post leave matters at the Supreme Court, I have observed that their honors lay a lot of emphasis on what has been said by the accused in the statement under Section 313. Infact, without naming a particular Chief Justice of India, I distinctly remember that given the paucity of time he and his bench had, the Court was simply dismissing or allowing appeals against convictions by asking the counsel as to what was said by the accused under his Section 313 statement.

Therefore, as defense counsels, we should all be very careful in conducting this stage of our trial. If our client is custody then it would be advisable to meet him / her and explain him / her about the process and the possible questions which would be ask from him / her during the statement under this Section. The amended Section 313(5) also now allows for the filing of a Written Statement before the court under this Section. However, in practice, it is best to simply follow what the judges want you to do and if the judge is insisting on an oral statement under this section (which most judges do) then it is best oblige them.

There would be many criminal trials which would be won or lost on the basis of how well could the accused defend against the incriminating material in his / her statement under Section 313. Hence, as defence counsels, it becomes our primary duty to ensure that the preparation of the accused is comprehensive before the date of hearing on which the statement of the accused is to be recorded.

Continue Reading
By
In

Guest Post Submission Guidelines

By

Guest Post Guidelines

The article should ideally be between 1000-4000 words in length.

The theme for the articles is restricted to the domain of criminal law.

The article should be analytical, novel and well-reasoned [mere descriptive articles have a really low acceptance rate].

General blog post format be followed. Most importantly, use hyperlinks for sources (and not footnotes).

Procedure For Submission:

The articles are to be mailed at roshan@chambersofrsanthalia.com.

The usual scrutiny period is 15 days. If you don’t hear back within the said period, it is very likely that your article has not been accepted.

NOTE: Contributors need to have a legal understanding of the issue and hence, contributions are accepted from lawyers, law professors and law students only.

Continue Reading
By
In

Article

By

November 27, 2023

TWIN BAIL CONDITIONS UNDER PMLA – NOVEL YET ARBITRARY INDIAN APPROACH – A COMPARISON WITH LAW FROM OTHER COUNTRIES

Advocate Raghav Makkar
In India, and elsewhere, the offence of money laundering is considered a heinous offence. Its effects are held to be far-reaching, having the potential to bring down the economy of nations. In fact, similar concerns prompted the United Nations General Assembly in June, 1998 to urge its member states to adopt national money laundering legislation and programme (Tarun Kumar v. Assitant Director Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.) No. 9431 of 2023). The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) was
Money Laundering
Read More

June 3, 2022

PRINCIPLES OF PROPORTIONALITY AND SENTENCING IN THE CASES OF ECONOMIC OFFENCES

Suruchi Jaiswal
“Whoever imposes severe punishment becomes repulsive to people while he who awards mild punishment becomes contemptible. The Ruler just with the rod is honoured. When deserved punishment is given, it endows the subject with spiritual good, material well-being and pleasures of senses.”                                                                            
Money Laundering, Penal Code   , , , ,
Read More

February 14, 2022

DECODING THE JURISPRUDENCE ON CANCELLATION OF BAIL UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF THE CRPC

Puja Jakhar
INTRODUCTION The concept of bail has been the citadel of attention for criminal law practitioners and scholars. It is one of those law topics that has succeeded in becoming the center of attention for lawyers as well as theorists (jurists). And righty so! The dichotomy of jail and bail touches upon the most cherished and celebrated right of personal liberty of an individual. Also, the impact of arrest on the reputation and self-esteem of an individual is an important consideration
Articles, Criminal Justice, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure   , , , , ,
Read More

December 7, 2021

THE PRINCIPLE OF AGENCY IN CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY: HOW WOULD CO – CONSPIRATORS BE PUNISHED & SENTENCED?

Puja Jakhar
“What makes the joint action of a group of ‘n’ persons more fearsome than the individual actions of those ‘n’ persons is the division of labour and the mutual psychological support that collaboration affords.”  -Bad Acts and Guilty Minds: Conundrums of the Criminal Law Conspiracy is an ‘inchoate’ offence. It is an independent offence and can be charged even if the intended offence is not committed or attempted. If two people, for example, plan the joint robbery of a store,
Articles, Criminal Conspiracy, Criminal Justice, Criminal Law, Penal Code   , , , , ,
Read More

September 13, 2021

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COGNIZABLE AND NON – COGNIZABLE OFFENCES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE INVESTIGATING POWERS OF THE POLICE

Karan Ahluwalia
By Karan Ahluwalia (4th Year Student, GNLU Gandhinagar) INTRODUCTION One of the most important classifications of offences in India under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”), is of them being either Cognizable or Non-Cognizable. Cognizable offences are those which are indicated as such under the First Schedule of the Code and in relation to which, the Police are empowered to arrest a person without a warrant. Non-Cognizable offences on the other hand, are of a smaller degree of
Articles, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure   , , , , ,
Read More

September 2, 2021

OFFENCES UNDER THE IP LAW WHOSE PUNISHMENT MAY EXTEND TO THREE YEARS: BAILABLE OR NON-BAILABLE?

Sholab Arora
This article discusses various judgments on the issue whether an offence whose punishment “may extend to three years” is a bailable / non-cognizable offence or a non-bailable / cognizable offence, with special emphasis on such offence(s) provided under the Copyright Act, 1957 [“Copyright Act”] and the Trade Marks Act, 1999 [“Trade Marks Act”]. Although the discussion herein largely focuses on the judgments delivered in the context of Section 63 of the Copyright Act, the same is (needless to clarify) extendable
Articles, Criminal Procedure   , , , , , ,
Read More

August 20, 2021

THE DISCRETION TO ARREST WITH POLICE – A PERSPECTIVE FROM THE EXPERIENCES OF A PRACTISING LAWYER

Puja Jakhar
The discretion to arrest and put an accused behind bars in an offence which is cognizable and non – bailable, is possibly the most powerful right which the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives to police officers. The rationale behind giving such power to a police officer is that during the course of investigation, the accused should not interfere with the process of a fair and independent investigation. The custody of the accused with the police also aids the police
Articles, Criminal Procedure   , , , , , ,
Read More

August 13, 2021

IMPORTANCE OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE CRPC – A VIEW FROM THE EYES OF A DEFENCE COUNSEL

Karan Ahluwalia
This article is being written with the purpose of highlighting the importance of the stage of the Statement of Accused during the course of a Criminal Trial. The article shall begin by placing the stage of the Statement of Accused in a chronological context of the Criminal Trial. Subsequently, the article shall reproduce and dissect the provision threadbare to explain the key legislative features of the same. Lastly, the article shall highlight the important judicial pronouncements of the Hon`ble Supreme
Articles, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure   , , , ,
Read More
Continue Reading
By
In

About Us

By

This blog has been developed and is being administered by the Chambers of Advocate Roshan Santhalia. Roshan completed his 5-year B.A. (Hons) LLB from NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad and subsequently pursued his full time postgraduate program of MSc in Criminal Justice from Oxford University, UK.

Roshan and his team of other competent advocates regularly represents his clients in both criminal law trial and appellate proceedings before the Delhi High Court, PMLA Appellate Tribunal and Delhi District Courts.

Roshan has represented his/her clients who have been charged for committing Economic Offences under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B etc of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Furthermore, Roshan has also represented his/her clients in criminal proceedings arising out of the Companies Act, 2013, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (both in the attachment proceedings and in the criminal trial).

This blog is an effort to contribute to the legal landscape of the evolving criminal law jurisprudence in India.

Continue Reading
By
In

Home

By

November 27, 2023

TWIN BAIL CONDITIONS UNDER PMLA – NOVEL YET ARBITRARY INDIAN APPROACH – A COMPARISON WITH LAW FROM OTHER COUNTRIES

Advocate Raghav Makkar
In India, and elsewhere, the offence of money laundering is considered a heinous offence. Its effects are held to be far-reaching, having the potential to bring down the economy of nations. In fact, similar concerns prompted the United Nations General Assembly in June, 1998 to urge its member states to adopt national money laundering legislation and programme (Tarun Kumar v. Assitant Director Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.) No. 9431 of 2023). The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) was
Money Laundering
Read More

June 3, 2022

PRINCIPLES OF PROPORTIONALITY AND SENTENCING IN THE CASES OF ECONOMIC OFFENCES

Suruchi Jaiswal
“Whoever imposes severe punishment becomes repulsive to people while he who awards mild punishment becomes contemptible. The Ruler just with the rod is honoured. When deserved punishment is given, it endows the subject with spiritual good, material well-being and pleasures of senses.”                                                                            
Money Laundering, Penal Code   , , , ,
Read More

February 14, 2022

DECODING THE JURISPRUDENCE ON CANCELLATION OF BAIL UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF THE CRPC

Puja Jakhar
INTRODUCTION The concept of bail has been the citadel of attention for criminal law practitioners and scholars. It is one of those law topics that has succeeded in becoming the center of attention for lawyers as well as theorists (jurists). And righty so! The dichotomy of jail and bail touches upon the most cherished and celebrated right of personal liberty of an individual. Also, the impact of arrest on the reputation and self-esteem of an individual is an important consideration
Articles, Criminal Justice, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure   , , , , ,
Read More

December 7, 2021

THE PRINCIPLE OF AGENCY IN CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY: HOW WOULD CO – CONSPIRATORS BE PUNISHED & SENTENCED?

Puja Jakhar
“What makes the joint action of a group of ‘n’ persons more fearsome than the individual actions of those ‘n’ persons is the division of labour and the mutual psychological support that collaboration affords.”  -Bad Acts and Guilty Minds: Conundrums of the Criminal Law Conspiracy is an ‘inchoate’ offence. It is an independent offence and can be charged even if the intended offence is not committed or attempted. If two people, for example, plan the joint robbery of a store,
Articles, Criminal Conspiracy, Criminal Justice, Criminal Law, Penal Code   , , , , ,
Read More

September 13, 2021

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COGNIZABLE AND NON – COGNIZABLE OFFENCES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE INVESTIGATING POWERS OF THE POLICE

Karan Ahluwalia
By Karan Ahluwalia (4th Year Student, GNLU Gandhinagar) INTRODUCTION One of the most important classifications of offences in India under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”), is of them being either Cognizable or Non-Cognizable. Cognizable offences are those which are indicated as such under the First Schedule of the Code and in relation to which, the Police are empowered to arrest a person without a warrant. Non-Cognizable offences on the other hand, are of a smaller degree of
Articles, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure   , , , , ,
Read More

September 2, 2021

OFFENCES UNDER THE IP LAW WHOSE PUNISHMENT MAY EXTEND TO THREE YEARS: BAILABLE OR NON-BAILABLE?

Sholab Arora
This article discusses various judgments on the issue whether an offence whose punishment “may extend to three years” is a bailable / non-cognizable offence or a non-bailable / cognizable offence, with special emphasis on such offence(s) provided under the Copyright Act, 1957 [“Copyright Act”] and the Trade Marks Act, 1999 [“Trade Marks Act”]. Although the discussion herein largely focuses on the judgments delivered in the context of Section 63 of the Copyright Act, the same is (needless to clarify) extendable
Articles, Criminal Procedure   , , , , , ,
Read More

August 20, 2021

THE DISCRETION TO ARREST WITH POLICE – A PERSPECTIVE FROM THE EXPERIENCES OF A PRACTISING LAWYER

Puja Jakhar
The discretion to arrest and put an accused behind bars in an offence which is cognizable and non – bailable, is possibly the most powerful right which the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives to police officers. The rationale behind giving such power to a police officer is that during the course of investigation, the accused should not interfere with the process of a fair and independent investigation. The custody of the accused with the police also aids the police
Articles, Criminal Procedure   , , , , , ,
Read More

August 13, 2021

IMPORTANCE OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE CRPC – A VIEW FROM THE EYES OF A DEFENCE COUNSEL

Karan Ahluwalia
This article is being written with the purpose of highlighting the importance of the stage of the Statement of Accused during the course of a Criminal Trial. The article shall begin by placing the stage of the Statement of Accused in a chronological context of the Criminal Trial. Subsequently, the article shall reproduce and dissect the provision threadbare to explain the key legislative features of the same. Lastly, the article shall highlight the important judicial pronouncements of the Hon`ble Supreme
Articles, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure   , , , ,
Read More
Continue Reading
By
Pin It