Section 169- Release of accused when evidence is deficient
Section 170- Cases to be sent to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient
- The Magistrate cannot direct the police to give a particular kind of report. However, once the report is given, the Magistrate needs to apply his mind. The Magistrate may then look at the police dairy to see the direction of the investigation. Under Section 156(3) the Magistrate may order a further investigation by the policy. The Magistrate may also drop the charges. The complainant may file a protest petition against this drop. However, this is a mere hearing and does not have a persuasive value.
Section 207- Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents
Section 171 – Complainant and witnesses not to be required to accompany police officer and not to subject to restraint.
The main reason is to ensure that they are not subjected to questioning.
Section 173 – Report of police officer on competition of investigation
Here there is a time frame within which investigation needs to be completed. This is however, not a hard rule and is flexible. The case will continue even if the time period is extended.
173(2)(ii)- This is just a protective measure to ensure that there is no compromise of the security of the complainant in any manner.
173(3) – The senior police officer is the Superintendent as given in Section 36.
173(6) – This is a strange power to the police officer that all documents need not be given to the accused. A reason however, has to be given as to why the documents are not being given. The denial of documents is only till the date of the trial. This power cannot deny the right to cross examine in any manner.
| The defence, however, is not under any obligation to disclose their case. They only have to defend the case of the Prosecution. |
173(8) – The police has the right to further investigate a case. This is different from the power with the Magistrate under Section156(3), where the Magistrate may ask for further investigation in a case.
| Further investigation refers to the investigation subsequent to the initial report which has been filed by the police. |
| ‘Investigation’ : Section 2(h)- Collection of physical evidence, statements, expert evidence, examination of a body etc. conducted by a police officer or by any person other than a magistrate, who is authorized by a Magistrate. |
State of Bihar v. JAC Saldhana
ISSUE
- Whether the State Government was competent to –
- Appoint further investigation to Inspector General Vigilance (a.k.a IGV) as per S.173(2) of the CrPC
- Give the Magistrate jurisdiction to try the case
- Whether the Magistrate in exercising his jurisdiction committed an illegality to postpone the case?
- Whether the HC was justified in interfering with the investigation?
REASONING
1) a) In the present case, the State Government had given the investigation the Inspector General Vigilance.
36 – CrPC
The officer directed by the State Govt. to carry on the investigation is the Inspector General Vigilance who as per S.36 of the CrPC is an officer superior in rank to the officer in charge of a police station. In S. 36 –
- The use of word rank leads to the hierarchy of police officers
- The Vigilance Department is deemed to be a police station having its jurisdiction throughout the State of Bihar.
- They can also exercise the powers of an officer in charge of a police station throughout the local area to which he was appointed meaning the State of Bihar.
S. 173(8) – CrPC
The source of power of the State Government to direct IGV to investigate comes from S.173(8) which enables an officer in charge of a police station to carry on investigation. Also, due to the unfettered nature of the State Government’s power to direct an officer superior in rank to investigate is allowed with a combined reading of S.173(8) and S.36.
2) The power of the Magistrate under S.156(3) to direct further investigation is not in conflict with the power of the State government. The Magistrate can exercise the power even after submission of a report by the investigating officer to accept the conclusion or not. And this power does not affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case as is provided in S.173(8). Therefore, the HC was in error holding that the State Government, in exercise of S.3 of the Police Act as superintendence, lacked the power to direct further investigation.
3) There is a clear-cut and demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department, the superintendent over which vests in the State Government. The executive is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and the police investigates a crime. After the full investigation and when the Court takes cognizance of the offence, the police investigation comes to an end, as stated in S.173(8). The adjudication function by the state commences. The present case is at the stage where investigation is not complete and by the order of the HC there is interference in this investigation in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction. The Court should take a step back and refrain from entering this sphere which is clearly demarcated for the police and executive.
Therefore, the order by HC is quashed and the order by Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate restored to continue investigation.
You can find notes on other topics on CrPC here. You can grab notes for other law subjects from here.
