Code of Criminal Procedure - Case Laws

CASE LAWS ON CODE OF Prepared By CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Judicial Adda This document is the property of Judicial Adda and no part of this notes may be reproduced, scanned, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise, or reproduced on or by any disc, tape, perforated media or any other storage device or method without the permission in writing. Judicial Adda Mob-9792 217748 2256/A, Upper Ground Floor, Mandir Email- [email protected] WaliGali, Patelnagar Metro Station, New Official Website- Delhi-110008 www.judicialadda.in SOCIAL MEDIA PLATEFORMS https://www.facebook.com/judicialadda1/ https://twitter.com/judicialadda https://www.instagram.com/judicialadda.in/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/judicialadda/ https://www.youtube.com/c/JudicialAdda1

S. No. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES Case Laws and its Explanations Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwari, AIR 2010 SC 2261 Provisions of the Code are to be interpreted in light of recognized principles of construction that procedural laws are meant for doing substantial justice. 2 1) Mowu v. Superintendent Special Jail, Nowgong, Assam, (1971) 3 SCC 936 2) Saptawana v. State of Assam, (1972) 4 SCC (N) 945 3) Naga people’s movement of Human Rights v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 109 Supreme Court held that though the provisions of Cr.P.C. are not applicable in certain districts of the State of Nagaland, it only means that the rules of Cr.P.C. would not apply but the authorities would be governed by the substance of these rules. 3 Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Assn. v. Union of India, (2016) 14 SCC 536 Other enactments which prescribe procedure would not be affected by the CrPC if such statue specifically provides for the applicable procedure and derogates from the Code. POWER OF COURTS 1 Sharad Hiru Kolambe v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 18 SCC 718 Default sentence must be in excess of or in addition to the substantive sentence. Concurrent running of default sentence inter se or with substantive sentence is not permissible. 2 Gagan Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2019) 5 SCC 154 The Supreme Court held that it is mandatory legal requirement to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively. 3 Premnath v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1599 A Civil Judge cannot be invested with the powers of Additional Sessions Judge unless he is appointed as Additional Session Judge under Section 9 of the Code. 4 Gokarau v. Rangaraju, AIR 1981 SC 1473 Judgments pronounced by Session Judge cannot be challenged on the ground that his appointment was subsequently held to be invalid. ARREST 1 Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 443 Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 • The law of arrest is one of balancing individual rights, liberties and privileges, on one hand and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities on one other hand.

• No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. • No arrest should be made without reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fide of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. • A person accused of offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police unless conditions mentioned in Section 41(1)(b) have been fulfilled. 2 State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar, (2008) 3 SCC 222 Custody and arrest are not synonymous terms. In every arrest there is custody but not vice- versa. Custody may amount to arrest in certain cases but not in all cases. Custody is physical control or presence of accused in court coupled with submission to the jurisdiction of the court. A person can be in custody when police arrests him or when he surrenders before the court. 3 Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260 The registration of FIR and arrest of accused person are two different things. It is not correct to say that merely because FIR is registered the accused can be arrested. 4 Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 96 Supreme Court held that accused person must be informed by Magistrate about his right to be medically examined. 5 Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 Police officers were directed not to automatically arrest where a case is registered under Section 498-A IPC and also in cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to 7. They have to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down in Section 41, Cr.P.C. 6 Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual. Therefore, the Courts have to be extremely careful before issuing non-bailable warrants. Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the interest of the society in maintaining law and order. Both are extremely important for the survival of a civilized society. Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to Court when summons or bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result. This could be when: i. It is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in Court;or ii. The police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summin;or iii. It is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into custody

immediately. MAINTENANCE 1 Nanak Chandra v. Chandra Kishore, (1969) 3 SCC 802 Provisions contained in Section 125-128 are applicable to all persons belonging to all relations and have no relationship with personal law of the parties. 2 Yamunabai v. Anantrao, AIR 1988 SC 644, Savitaben v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2005 SC 1089 The term ‘wife’ means legally wedded wife. Second wife cannot claim maintenance. 3 Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and Anr., [Cr. Appeal no. (s) 232- 233 of 2015 decided on 19.09.19 Supreme Court held that a wife, who has been divorced by the husband, on the ground that the wife has deserted him, is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4 D.Velusamy v. D. Patchalammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469 Woman who is in marriage like relationship, though not legally married, can claim maintenance. The court held that not all live-in-relationships will amount to relationships in nature of marriage, ‘Relationship in nature of marriage’ must fulfil following conditions:- a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as akin to spouses; b) They must be of legal age to marry; c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage; d) They must have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period of time. 5 Vijay Manohar v. Kashi Rao Raja Ram, AIR 1987 SC 1100 Daughter whether (married or not) would also be liable to pay maintenance. 6 Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 The phrase “unable to maintain herself” would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. 7 Karnala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, (2019) 11 SCC 491 For fulfilling true spirit of beneficial legislation of Section 125 CrPC strict proof of marriage is not required. Long cohabitation between woman and man may lead to presumption of marriage entitling maintenance for woman and children born to them. This presumption is a rebuttable presumption. 8 Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 In deciding the quantum of maintenance of wife under Section 125 CrPC the wife is entitled in law to lead life in a similar manner as he would have lived in house with her husband. It is statutory obligation of husband to see that the wife does not become destitute.

PREVENTIVE ACTION 1 Anita Thakur v. State of J&K, (2016) 15 SCC 525 Before ordering for use of force to disperse unlawful assembly, Magistrate needs to satisfy himself that:- 1. There is an unlawful assembly with object of committing violence or assembly of five or more persons likely to cause disturbance to public peace; 2. Executive Magistrate must order for unlawful assembly to disperse; and 3. Even after such order unlawful assembly does not disperse. INVESTIGATION 1 H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 The investigation of offence generally consists of – i. Proceeding on the spot; ii. Ascertainment of facts and circumstances of the case; iii. Discovery and arrest of offence; iv. Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence. It may consist of examination of various persons and search and seizure of various things. v. Formation of opinion whether on the basis of materials collected the accused has committed the offence or not. 2 Habib v. State of Bihar, (1972) 4 SCC 773 The purpose of FIR is: i. To set the criminal law in motion ii. To obtain early information of the alleged offence from the informant and put into writing before his memory fades. 3 State of U.P. v. Raghuvir, (2018) 13 SCC 732 Delay in lodging FIR is normally viewed with suspicion because of possibility of concoction and courts subject the evidence with close scrutiny. 4 State of M.P. v. Chhakki lak, (2019) 12 SCC 326 Satpal v. State of Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 610 Latesh v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 3 SCC 66 FIR is not encyclopedia requiring every minute details of occurrence to be mentioned therein. 5 Sunil Khergade v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 15 SCC 773 FIR need not necessarily contain details of each and every injury sustained by the deceased. 6 Motiram Padu Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 9 SCC 429 Omission as to the names of assailants or witnesses may not at all times be fatal to the prosecution if the FIR is lodged without delay. 7 Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat, (1973) 3 SCC 114

Even a telephonic message if it discloses a cognizable offence may constitute FIR. 8 Patai alias Krishna Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 2254 In order for the information to be qualified as an FIR there must be something in the nature of complaint or accusation regarding commission of a cognizable offence. A cryptic message recording an occurrence cannot be termed as an FIR. 9 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) 335 The word ‘information’ in Section 154 is not qualified by the term ‘reasonable’. By omitting the word ‘reasonable’ and ‘credible’ the intent of legislature is clear that no discretion is given to the police to lodge the FIR. 10 Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, 2013 (13) SCALE 559 Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is needed in such situation. However, in certain types of cases preliminary inquiry can be conducted before registration of FIR. These cases are:- 1. Matrimonial/family disputes 2. Commercial offences 3. Medical negligence cases 4. Corruption cases 5. Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal proceedings. 11 Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 443 Preliminary inquiry before registration of FIR may be held in cases relating to matrimonial/family disputes. Preliminary inquiry does not mean to verify the veracity of information but to ascertain whether the information discloses any cognizable offence. 12 Gajanan Dashrath Kharate v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 4 SCC 604 Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 673 The object of insisting upon prompt registration of FIR is to obtain early information not only regarding the accused but also about the part played by the accused, nature of incident and name of witnesses. 13 Damodarprasad Chandrikaprasad v. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 1 SCC 107 FIR is an important document and its sets the criminal law in motion. It is not a substantive piece of evidence i.e. evidence of the facts recorded in it. 14 Aghnoo Nagesla v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119 FIR can be used to corroborate the information under Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act (Evidence Act) or to contradict under Section 145 of Evidence Act if the informant is called as witness at the time of trial.

15 State of Orissa v. Sharat Chandra Sahu, (1996) 6 SCC 435 While investigation a cognizable offence, police are not debarred from investigating any non- cognizable offence arising from the same facts. 16 H.N. Kishbud v State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 Section 156(2) makes it clear that any irregularity in investigation will not vitiate the trial. 17 Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi, (2007) 12 SCC 641 Even if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) and if theMagistrate is satisfied, he can order a proper investigation and take suitable steps. 18 Srinivas Gundluri v. SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corpn., (2010) 8 SCC 2006 Even if a complaint is field then also Magistrate instead of taking cognizance complaint can order investigation under Section 156(3). 19 Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409 Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277 The Magistrate also has the implied and incidental powers to make any express power effective. When the Magistrate orders investigation under Section 156(3) and police officer does not investigate or investigates improperly then there is no need to approach High Court under Section 482 of the Code or under Article 226 of the Constitution. Magistrate himself has incidental power to pass another order of investigation or proper investigation under Section 156(3). This does not mean that the Magistrate will interfere in the investigation. 20 A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 P. Ramchandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578 The court shall not interfere in the investigation proceedings as that is the prerogative of the executive. 21 Suresh Chandra Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (42) ACC 459 Supreme Court held that the Magistrate has the authority to treat application under Section 156(3) as a complaint. 22 State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan, (2016) 2 SCC 521 The purpose of ‘forthwith’ communication of the information is to check the possibility of manipulation. 23 Bthula Nagamalleswara Rao v. State, 2008 (3) Supreme 129 The conjoint reading of Section 157 and 159 clearly postulates that the purpose of sending

the occurrence report is to avoid possibility in improvement of prosecution story. 24 Nandani Satpathy v. P.I. Dani, (1978) 2 SCC 424 Area covered by Article 20 (3) and Section 161(2) is substantially same and Section 161(2) is a parliamentary gloss on the constitutional clause. 25 Raghunandan v. State of U.P., (1974) 4 SCC 186 Section 162 is limited in its scope to the use of parties only. A court can ask any question whether in nature of corroboration or contradiction under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 162 does not control Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act. 26 Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal, (2016) 16 SCC 418 Delay in recording statements of witnesses does not necessarily discredit their testimonies. The court may relay on such testimonies if they are cogent and credible and delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court. 27 Virender Singh v. State of Haryana, (2017) 11 SCC 126 Statement recorded under Section 161 does not constitute evidence that can be relied upon by the court to convict the accused in absence of substantive evidence. 28 Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547 Bar of Section 162 CrPC operates only from the beginning of investigation till the termination of the same. In case statement which does not constitute confession, but is relevant as admission, is made before the investigation commences then such statement can be made admissible and bar of Section 162 CrPC will not operate. 29 Raghu Nandan v. State of U.P., (1974) 4 SCR 186 The court while examining the person as court witness under Section 311 of the Code or asking any question to any witness under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, may make use of previous statements and restrictions put under Section 162 of the Code are not applicable. 30 Tehsildar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012 Significant omissions in statements before the police during the course of investigation are deemed to be part of the statement and may amount to contradiction. 31 CBI v. Anupam Kulkarni, (1992) 3 SCC 141 Police remand should not be resorted to after 15 days of arrest. 32 Hussainara Khatoon (5) v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 108 It is the duty of the Magistrate to inform the accused that he has a right to be released on bail under Section 167 proviso.

33 Sanjay Dutt v. State, (1994) 4 SCC 410 Assam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 4 SCC 272 Bail granted under Section 167 proviso remains valid till it is cancelled and the receipt of charge-sheet in the court by itself is no ground for cancellation of bail. 34 Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI, (2007) 8 SCC 413 So long as the police report is not filled under Section 173(2) the investigation remains pending. The submission of report under Section 173(2) does not preclude further investigation under Section 173(8). 35 Union of India v. Prakash Hinduja, (2003) CrLJ 3117 (SC) The formation of opinion whether there is a sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the case the Magistrate or not is to be that of the office- in-charge of the police station and the Magistrate has no role to play. 36 Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 Magistrate cannot compel the police officer to submit the charge-sheet. 37 Sampat Singh v. State of Haryana, (1993) 1 SCC 561 In case final report is filed the court should scrutinize the final report and take a decision either to accept or reject it. 38 Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Pollice, (1985) 2 SCC 537 Supreme Court held that complainant should be heard before the Magistrate drops the case. 39 Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, AIR 2016 SC 4136 It was held that an accused is entitled to get a copy of the FIR at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. FIR must be uploaded on police website within 24 hours unless the case is sensitive in nature i.e. like sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism. 40 Parvinderjit Singh v. State (U.T. Chandigarh) (2008) 4 SCC 2873 The role of the investigator is well-defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The Court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of accused in a cognizable offence. 41 Sunil v. State of M.P., (2017) 4 SCC 393 Failure to conduct DNA tests of samples taken from the accused or to prove the report of DNA profiling, would not necessarily result in failure of prosecution case. Conviction may still be possible based on the remaining evidences.

42 Kathi David Raju v. State of A.P., (2019) 7 SCC 769 Direction for identification of person by DNA test should be based on satisfaction of police authorities on some material collected on basis of substantial investigation. DNA test cannot be requested or directed as a step towards roving or fishing inquiry. 43 State v. H. Srinivas, (2018) 7 SCC 572 The obligation of maintenance of the General Diary is a part of the course of conduct of the officer concerned. Non-maintenance of General Diary may not itself have any bearing on the criminal trial unless some grave prejudice going to the root of the matter is shown. 44 Yogesh Singh v. Mahabir Singh, (2017) 11 SCC 195 Anjan Dasgupta v. State of W.B., (2017) 11 SCC 222 In term of Section 157, the police officer is concerned is required to forward a copy of FIR to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence promptly and without delay. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever there is some delay in sending FIR to the Magistrate, the prosecution version becomes unreliable. If the FIR was recorded promptly and investigation has started on the basis of FIR then in the absence of any prejudice to the accused it cannot be said that the investigation was tainted and prosecution story is unreliable. 45 Balakram v. State of Uttrakhand, (2017) 7 SCC 668 Right of accused to cross examine police officer with reference to the entries in the police diary is very much limited in extent and even that limited scope arises only when the police officer uses it for refreshing his memory and it is subject to provisions of Section 145 and 161 of Indian Evidence Act. There is no scope of Section 172 to enable the court, prosecution or accused to use police diary for purpose of contradicting any witness other than police officer. The Court has unfettered power to call for and examine the entries in the police diaries maintained by the investigating officer. 46 Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 612 No external agency can dictate the course of investigation in a criminal case. It is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the police. Courts cannot supervise investigation. Only in exceptional circumstances superior courts can monitor investigation but that is not the same as supervision. 47 Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 Where the investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, and no police report is filed on 60th or 90th day then the accused gets indefensible right to default bail. The accused must apply for default bail and he should be prepared to furnish bail. 48 Amrutbhal Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel, (2017) 4 SCC 177

The Magistrate can direct further investigation even after the police report has been submitted under Section 173(2). Such direction of further investigation can be made under Section 156(3) at pre-cognizance stage. 49 Athul Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2018) 14 SCC 298 Neither Magistrate suo moto, nor on an application filed by complainant/informant, can direct further investigation once charges are framed and cognizance taken. Further investigation can only be ordered on the request of investigating agency and that too in circumstances warranting further investigation on detection of material evidence only to secure fair investigation. 50 Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) 6 SCC 72 Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh, (2017) 11 SCC 195 Inquest report is not a substantive piece of evidence. Its purpose is limited to ascertain nature of injuries and cause of death. Its object is to ascertain whether death is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or caused by animals or machinery etc. It states the manner in which or by what weapon or instruments injuries appears to have been inflicted. 51 Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P., (2019) 8 SCC 1 Supreme Court held that a judicial Magistrate can direct an accused to provide his voice samples for investigation even without his consent. 52 Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others v. The State of Gujarat, 2019 (3) ALT Cri 284 (SC) Magistrate can invoke power under Section 156(3) CrPC even at post-cognizance stage. 53 State of Telangana v. Sri Managipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy, Cr. Appeal No. 1662 of 2019 decided on 06.12.19 The Supreme Court observed that a preliminary inquiry before registration of First Information Report (FIR) is not required to be mandatorily conducted in all corruption cases. 54 Bikash Ranjhan Rout v. State, (2019) 5 SCC 542 The Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to suo moto pass an order for further investigation/reinvestigation after he discharges the accused. 55 Ramswaroop Soni v. State of M.P., Cr. Appeal No. 614 of 2019 decided on 08.04.2019 The Supreme Court reiterated that a magistrate, upon receipt of a closure/refer report, cannot direct the police to file charge sheet. Such a direction is wholly unsustainable. JURISDICTION 1 Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 5 SCC 384 Supreme Court held that the court at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or

driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 2 State (NCT of Delhi) v. Brijesh Singh, (2017) 10 SCC 779 Even if the crime is committed in one State it can be tried in another State if the detrimental effect is in the State. The principle of ‘Crime is local’ is not applicable in such cases. COGNIZANCE 1 M.L. Sethi v. R.L. Kapur, AIR 1967 SC 528 The expression ‘taking cognizance’ has not been defined in the Code. The expression is used to indicate a point when the Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiate criminal proceedings. 2 HDFC Securities Ltd v. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 1 SCC 640 The words ‘may take cognizance’ in Section 190(1) cannot be equated with ‘must take cognizance’. The word ‘may’ gives the discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. The Magistrate on receiving complaint is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. If on perusing the complaint the Magistrate finds that the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and that forwarding the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive he will be justified in the adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance. 3 Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, AIR 2012 SC 1185 Supreme Court held that cognizance is taking judicial notice by the court of law, possessing jurisdiction, on a matter presented before it so as to decide whether there is any basis for initiating proceedings. 4 Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttranchal, 92008) 4 CrLJ 4377 (SC) When magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged offence, then it can be positively stated than he has taken cognizance of the offence. 5 Manhari Bhai v. Shailesh Bhai, (2012) 10 SCC 527 Taking cognizance des not mean issuance of process. 6 Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 9 SCALE 542 The Magistrate in exercise of its power under Section 190 can refuse to take cognizance if material on record warrants so. Magistrate performs judicial function but he cannot appreciate the evidence on record to reach the conclusion. It is impermissible for the Magistrate to weigh the evidence and balance the probability of the case at this stage.

7 Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerrsnguntla Shyamsundar, (2017) 7 SCC 760 Magistrate conferred with the power of taking cognizance and issuing process must carefully scrutinize whether allegations made in the complaint meet the basic ingredients of offence, whether the concept of territorial jurisdiction is satisfied and whether the accused needs to be summoned. 8 Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab, (2008) 9 SCC 140 It is settled law that court can take cognizance of an offence only and once the cognizance is taken the court becomes functus officio. There can be no recall of order of cognizance. 9 Mohd. Yusuf v. Afaq Jahan, (2006) 1 SCC 627 Before taking cognizance of an offence the Magistrate can direct investigation under Section 156(3). It is open for the Magistrate to direct police officer to register FIR. Even if Magistrate does not say so in many words while directing investigation under Section 156(3) that FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the concerned officer-in-charge of police station to register FIR. 10 Devendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, (2019) 4 SCC 351 Supreme Court held that in order to attract rigor of Section 197 the offence alleged against a Government Officer must have some nexus with the discharge of his official dutied as Government Officer. 11 Choudhury Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2009 SC 1404 All acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot as a matter of course be brought under the protective umbrella of Section 197. The underlying object of 197 is to enable the authorities to scrutinize the allegations made against a public servant to shield him/her against frivolous, vexatious or false prosecution initiated with the main object of causing embrassement and harassment to the said official. However, if the authority vested in a public servant is misused for doing things which are not otherwise permitted under the law, such acts cannot claim the protection of S. 197. 12 Vishnu Chandra Gaonkar v. N.M. Desal, (2018) 5 SCC 422 Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is applicable only in case the offence enumerated therein have been committed with respect to a document after that document has been produced or given in evidence in a proceedings in any court. That is to say the offence must have been committed when the document was in custodia legis and not prior to that. 13 K.K. Mishra v. State of M.P., (2018) 6 SCC 676 In order to avail remedy under Section 199(2) and 199(4) statements must not only be defamatory but there has to be a nexus between the statement and the discharge of public duties of office.

14 P.C. Joshi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 387 The rationale for special procedure provided under Section 199(2) is that the offence of defamation committed against the functionaries mentioned therein is really an offence committed against the state as the same relates to the discharge of public functions by State functionaries. 15 State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, 2019 (2) JT 212 Supreme Court explained the procedure to be adopted by a Magistrate in a case instituted upon Police Report. The court observed that in summoning the accused, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to examine the merits and demerits of the case and whether the materials collected is adequate for supporting the conviction. Magistrate is not required to record reasons for summoning accused in cases instituted on Police Report. 16 S.K. Miglani v. State NCT of Delhi, (2019) 6 SCC 111 The Supreme Court observed that a public servant working in a nationalized bank cannot claim benefit of Sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 17 Minu Kumari v. State, AIR 2006 SC 1937 Where the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance and drop the proceedings then noticed to the informant and opportunity of hearing must be granted. COMPLAINTS TO MAGISTRATE 1 Manhari Bhai v. Shailesh Bhai, (2012) 10 SCC 517 Supreme Court held that Section 202 of the code has following two objects: 1) It enables the Magistrate to scrutinize the allegations in the complaint with a view to prevent harassment to the accused. 2) It helps the Magistrate to find out whether there is some material to support the allegations in the complaint. 2 Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru, (2010) 2 SCC 631 The order of dismissal of complaint is neither an order of acquittal nor an order of discharge, therefore, principle incorporated under Section 300 is not applicable. The Supreme Court held that only in exceptional circumstances the second complaint can be entertained. These circumstances may be 1) Previous order of dismissal was passed on incomplete record; 2) Previous order was result of misunderstanding of the nature of complaint or was manifestly absurd or unjust; 3) Where the new facts are adducted in second complaint which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been bought on record in the previous proceedings. 3 S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunnad Raghuram, (2015) 9 SCC 609 There is no enabling provision in the code which permits the amendment of complaint.

However, Supreme Court held that if the amendment sought to be made relates to a simple infirmity which is curable by means of a formal amendment and by allowing such amendment, no prejudice could be caused to the other side, then notwithstanding the fact that there is no enabling provision in the code for entertaining such amendment, the Court may permit such an amendment to be made. 4 Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar, (2017) 3 SCC 528 The requirement of conducting inquiring or directing investigation under Section 202 before issuing process is not an empty formality. No specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided in Section 202. In inquiry envisaged under Section 200, examination of complainant only is necessary with the option of examining the witnesses, if any. 5 Chand Devi Daga v. Manju K. Humatani, (2018) 1 SCC 71 Legal heirs of deceased complainant have right to continue proceedings after the death of complainant in a warrant case. ISSUE OF PROCESS 1 India Carat (P) Ltd. V. State of Karnataka, (1989) 2 SCC 132 At the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint and only to be prima facie that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case. 2 Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 623 The object of furnishing the accused person with copies of the statements and documents as mentioned above is to put him on notice of what he has to meet at the time of inquiry or trial and to prepare himself for his defence.\\ 3 Prabhu Dutt Tiwari v. State of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 609 At the stage of summoning accused on the basis of a private complaint, all that is required is satisfaction by Magistrate, that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused in the light of the records made and the evidence adduced by the accused. 4 P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala, 2019 Supreme (SC) 1306 The Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate cannot withhold any document submitted by the investigating officer along with the police report except when it is voluminous. In case of voluminous documents, the accused can be permitted to take inspection of the concerned document either personally or through his pleader in Court. CHARGE 1 Birichh Bhuian v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 1120 Charge can be defined as a precise formulation of specific accusation made against a person

of an offence alleged to have been committed by him. 2 State v. Anup Kumar Shrivastava, (2017) 15 SCC 560 Framing of charge is the first major step in the criminal trial where the court is expected to apply its mind to evidence placed before it and consider possibility of discharging the accused or requiring him to face trial. At the stage of framing of charge the trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the material produced by prosecution or sufficiency of material to establish offence alleged. Where the court finds that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed offence, it shall frame the charge. This presumption is not the presumption of law as such. At this stage there cannot be roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter. 3 V.C. Shukla v. State, AIR 1980 SC 962 The charge serves as a purpose of notice or intimation to the accused, giving a clear and unambiguous notice of the nature of accusation. It is to enable the accused to have a clear idea of what he is being tried for. It is an important step in criminal trial and it separates the stage of inquiry from trial. 4 Willie Slaney v. State of M.P., AIR 1956 SC 116 The object of the charge is to give accused notice of the matter he is charged with. If the necessary information is conveyed to him and no prejudice is caused to him because of the charges, the accused cannot succeed by merely showing that the charges framed were defective. 5 Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, (2011) 9 SCC 272 The purpose of framing the charge is to give intimation to the accused regarding the nature of the accusation which he will be called upon to meet in the course of trial. 6 Jaswinder Saini v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 256 The code gives ample power to the court to alter or amend a charge whether by the trial court or by the appellate court. 7 Nitya Dharmanand v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy, (2018) 2 SCC 93 At the stage of framing of charge the accused cannot ordinarily invoke Section 91 of the Code. However, the court is not debarred from exercising the power under Section 91 in the interest of justice. The court has to be satisfied that the material available with the investigator, not made part of the charge-sheet has crucial bearing on the issue of framing of charge. Thus, ordinarily the court has to proceed on the basis of the material produced with the charge-sheet for framing of charge but if the court is satisfied that the investigator has withheld certain documents important from the point of view of ensuring justice then court is not debarred from summoning the same. 8 Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar, AIR 2009 SC 103

There is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submissions made on his behalf at the stage of framing of charge and only such material as are indicated in S.227 C.P.C. can be taken into consideration by the Magistrate at the Stage. 9 Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel, (2018) 7 SCC 743 Erroneous, irregular or absence of specific charge does not render conviction invalid unless failure of justice has occasioned. 10 State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav, (2017) 8 SCC 1 Separate trial is rule and joint trial is an exception. Joint trial would be improper if the court allows innumerable offences spread over long period of time and committed by large number of persons to be tried jointly under the protective wings of an all-embracing conspiracy. 11 State v. S. Selvi, (2018) 13 SCC 455 At the time of framing of charge probative value of material on record has to be gone into which proceeds on presumption that materials produced by prosecution is true but the court is not expected to go deep into the matter. If two views are equally possible and the judge is satisfied on the basis of evidence produced that there is some suspicion but no grave suspicion then he will be justified in discharging the accused. TRIAL 1 B.A. Umesh v. High Court of Karnataka, (2017) 4 SCC 124 The conviction has a right to be heard on the question of sentence, but there is no mandate to fix a separate date for hearing on a sentence. It depends upon facts and circumstances of the case whether a separate date is required for hearing on sentence or not. 2 Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar, 1979 CrLJ 154 (SC) While considering the question of framing of charges under Section 227 the court has power to sift and weigh the evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not prima facie case against the accused has been made out. 3 Malkiar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1991) 4 SCC 341 Hearing on sentence is not confined merely to oral hearing but it is also intended to afford an opportunity to the prosecution as well as the accused to place before the court facts/material relating to various factors on the question of sentence and if interested by either side, to have evidence adduced to show mitigating circumstances to impose lesser sentence. Therefore, sufficient time should be given to the accused to hear on the question of sentence. 4 State of Goa v. Jose Maria Albert Vales, (2018) 11 SCC 659 The distinction between the procedures adopted for cases instituted on police report and cases instituted otherwise than on police report, lies in the fact that in the former, there is no scope for the prosecution to examine any witness at the stage where the Magistrate is to consider, whether the charge is to be framed or not.

INQUIRIES & TRIAL : GENERAL PRINCIPLES 1 Khatri(2) v. State of Bihar, (1981) 1 SCC 627 Constitutional obligation to provide free legal aid does not arise only the trial commences but when the accused is for the first time produced before a Magistrate and also when he is remanded from time to time. 2 Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415 The provisions of Section 300 are also based on the principle of res-judicata, or issue estoppel. It means the verdict of acquittal given by competent court, will be binding on the parties to the adjudication in all subsequent proceedings. 3 Amir Hamza Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 8 SCC 357 Supreme Court held that though the Magistrate is not bound to grant permission to a victim to conduct prosecution at the mere asking but the victim has a right to assist the Court in a trial before the Magistrate. If the Magistrate is satisfied that the victim is in a position to assist the Court and the trial does not involve such complexities which cannot be handled by the victim, the magistrate would be within its jurisdiction to grant permission to the victim. 4 Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 1346 Supreme Court held that the power of court to recall any witness or witnesses already examined or to summon any witness can be invoked even if the evidence on both sides is closed so long as the court retains seisin of the criminal proceedings. 5 Sheodhan Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 288 When an application under Section 321 is made it is not necessary for the court to assess the evidence to discover whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The court has to see whether the application is made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice and not to thwart or stifle the process of law. 6 Abdul Karim v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 710 Withdrawal from prosecution cannot be allowed when it will stifle or thwart the process of law or cause manifest injustice. 7 Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 911 Conviction of an accused ordered in a trial in which the accused was not provided legal aid has to be set aside as being in violation Article 21. 8 Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 Supreme Court laid down following guidelines with respect to Section 319:- i. The word ‘evidence’ has to be broadly understood and it must not be restricted to the evidence brought during trial. Materials coming before the court in course of inquiries

can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences for the exercise of Section 319. ii. The ‘evidence’ need not be tested by cross-examination. The power can be exercised even on the basis of examination-in-chief. iii. The degree of satisfaction required for summoning the person under Section 319 is same as that off framing of charge. iv. A person not named in FIR but has not been charge-sheet or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319. 9 Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368 Supreme Court held that a trial court can summon under Section 319 those persons named in FIR, but who were not charge-sheeted, even if the stage of giving opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition is over. 10 S. Mohammas Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak, (2017) 16 SCC 226 Section 319 is meant to rope in those persons who were not implicated when the charge sheet was filed but during the trial the court finds that sufficient evidence has come on record to summon them and face the trial. Power under Section 319 is discretionary and an extraordinary power and it has to be used sparingly. 11 State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasasd Yadav, (2017) 8 SCC 1 Article 20(2) of the Constitution stipulates that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This is called doctrine of double jeopardy. The objective of this Article is to avoid harassment, where a person has committed only one crime. It is based on the maxim nemo debet bis vexari, which means no person shall be put twice in peril for the same offence. There are two aspects of doctrine of double jeopardy i.e. Autrefois convict and autrefois acquit. Autrefois convict means a person has been previously convicted in respect of the same offence. Autrefois acquit means that the person has been previously acquitted in respect of the same offence. 12 Ratanla v. Prahlad Jat, (2017) 9 SCC 340 Section 311 has been enacted to enable the court to find out the truth and render just decision. According to this provision the court may at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as a witness or examine or recall or re-examine any person already summoned. The object of this provision is to do justice from the point of view of accused, prosecution and society. Power has to be exercised only for strong and cogent reasons. 13 Edmund S. Lyngodh v. State of Meghalaya, (2016) 15 SCC 572 Conviction of the accused cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the statements under Section 313. Such statements are only the version of the accused stating the incriminating circumstances against him. Such statements must not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with other prosecution evidence.

14 Basavarai Pillai v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 740 The term ‘personally’ used in Section 313 if given strict and restrictive interpretation would mean that the accused had to be physically present in the court. This section has to be considered in light of the charges in the technology of communication and transmission. Accordingly the court held that it was not necessary that in all cases the accused must answer by remaining present in the court. 15 Rekha Murarka v. State of West Bengal, 2019 Supreme (SC) 1286 The Supreme Court observed that, though a victim can engage a private counsel to assist the prosecution, such counsel could not be given the right to make oral arguments or examine and cross-examine witnesses. 16 Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI, (2019) 14 SCC 328 The Supreme Court observed that filing of successive applications for recall of a witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be encouraged. 17 Bhagyan Das v. State of Utarakhand, (2019) 4 SCC 354 The Supreme Court observed that a court has discretion to reject a plea to compound an offence having social impact, even if the offence is compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. BAIL 1 Moti Ram v. State of M.P., AIR 1978 SC 1594 Supreme Court held that bail is a process to set a person free who is under arrest or detention by taking security for his appearance. Expression ‘bail’ covers both release on one’s own bond, with or without sureties. The right to be released on bail cannot be nullified indirectly by fixing too high the amount of bond or bail-bond to be furnished by the person seeing release. 2 Sunil Pulchahnd v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1023 Personal liberty is one of the most valuable fundamental right given under the constitution. The principle underlying the release on bail is that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. A person released on bail is considered to be in constructive custody of the Court. 3 Gudikanti v Public Prosecutor, AIR 1978 SC 429 Supreme Court held that basic rule should be ‘bail not jail’ except where there are circumstances suggesting accused fleeing from justice, possibility of repeating the offences and like. 4 Sharad v. State of Maharashtra, Cr. Appeal N. 1221 of 2019 decided on 08.08.2019

Supreme Court held that an accused after withdrawing his bail application before the High Court can file a subsequent bail application before the Session Court. 5 Union of India v. Padam Narain, (2008) 13 SCC 305 The term ‘anticipatory bail’ has not been defined in the Code. The bail is granted in anticipation of arrest. When anticipatory bail is granted then in the event of arrest the person arrested in released on bail. Only after arrest the person granting anticipatory bail becomes operative. 6 Gurubaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 Supreme Court laid down following principles in respect of anticipatory bail:- ➢ Registration of FIR is not a condition precedent to exercise the power under Section 438; ➢ Interim order can be passed without notice to the Public Prosecutor but before passing the final order notice must be given; ➢ Order under Section 438 would not affect the right of police to conduct investigation; ➢ Where a case has been made for remand under Section 167(2) or reasonable claim to secure incriminating material under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised. ➢ Blanket order of anticipatory bail should not be made. ➢ 7 Gurucharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179 Two paramount consideration for granting bail are likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with the evidence. It is essential that due and proper weight shoud be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. 8 Raghubir v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481 Supreme Court laid down the following circumstances where the bail can be cancelled:- ➢ Hampers investigation; ➢ Tampers investigation; ➢ Commits same or similar offence; ➢ Absconds or goes beyond the control of sureties; ➢ Misuses liberty granted to him; ➢ 9 Naresh Kumar Yadav v. Ravindra Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC 632 The application must show that he has ‘reason to believe’ that he may be arrested in a non- bailable offence. Use of the expression ‘reason to believe’ shows that the applicant may be arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere ‘fear’ is not ‘belief’ for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of vague apprehension that someone is going to make an accusation against him in pursuance of which he may be arrested. 10 Prasad Srikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458 Court granting bail should exercise its direction in a judicious manner and not as a matter of

course. At the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence need not be undertaken. Following factors should be considered before granting bail:- a) The nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction. b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to complaint c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charges. 11 Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129 Relevant consideration for grant of bail a) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed offence; b) Nature and gravity of the charge; c) Severity of punishment in event of conviction; d) Danger of accused absconding or fleeing; e) Character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused; f) Likelihood of offence being repeated; g) Reasonable apprehension of witness being tampered with; h) Danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. i) 12 Mohd. Kunju v. State of Karanataka, (1999) 8 SCC 660 If accused are more than one then execution of separate bail bond should be insisted. The duty of the surety is the production of the accused for bail. If any charge in terms and conditions under which the accused is granted bail is not acceptable to surety then he should communicate the same to the court failing which he will be held liable. 13 State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi, (1978) 2 SCC 411 Rejection of bail when bail is applied is one thing and cancellation of bail is another. It is easier to reject a bail in non-bailable cases than to cancel the bail once granted. Cancellation of bail involves reviewing the earlier decision granting bail. It should be sparingly exercised and only in supervening circumstances. 14 X v. State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511 Rejection of bail in a non-bailable cases at the initial stages and cancellation of bail so granted have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cognent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for order directing cancellation of bail. Bail nce granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical and routine manner. Supervening circumstances should be considered before cancelling bail. 15 Mauji Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 8 SCC 17 The Supreme Court reiterated that bail cannot be granted without assigning any reason as to on what grounds, even though of a prima facie nature, it is considered just and proper to grant bail. APPEAL 1 Md. Sajjad@Raju@Salim v. State of West Bengal, 2017 (1) RCR (Criminal) 748

In this case two persons were convicted for committing murder. Only one of the accused filed appeal against conviction and was acquitted. Conviction of second accused who did not file appeal was also set aside. Court held that if on evaluation of the case, a conclusion is reached that no conviction of any accused was possible the benefit of that decision must be extended to the similarly situated co-accused even though he had not challenged the order by way of the appeal. MISCELLANEOUS 1 Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1982 SC 1433 Supreme Court held that benefit of set-off under Section 428 is not available to life convicts. 2 State of Maharashtra v. tapas D. Neogy, (1997) 7 SCC 685 Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 2 SCC 372 The bank account of accused or any of his relation is ‘property’ within the meaning of Section 102 of the Code. The police officer in the course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence. 3 Nevada Properties Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Anr, Cr Appeal No. 1481/2019 decided on 24.09.2019 The Supreme Court held that the police does not have the power to attach immovable property during investigation under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, police does have authority to freeze movable properties of the accused. The Supreme Court held that the expression ‘any property’ appearing in Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not include ‘immovable property’. 4 Raju Jagdish Paswan v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 16 SCC 380 The Supreme Court held that a death sentence can be imposed only when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. 5 Accused X v. State of Maharashtra, Cr. Appeal No. 680/2007 on 12.04.2017 2019 SCC online SC 543 The Supreme Court held that post conviction mental illness will be a mitigating factor while considering appeals of death convicts. 6 New Indai Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Kumar Pandey, Cr. Appeal No. 1852/2019 on 06.12.2019 The Supreme Court has observed that the High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall an order and the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C would not bar it from exercise of such powers. 7 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Suryanarayanan & Anr., Cr. Appeal No. 170/2009 decided on 13.12.2018

The Supreme Court held that where a claim is made before the court that the property does not belong to the person from whom it was seized, Section 452 of the CrPC does not mandate that its custody should be handed over to the person from whose possession it was seized, overriding the claim of genuine title which is asserted on behalf of a third party. 8 Mahesh Dube v. Shivbodh Dubel, (2019) 4 SCC 160 The Supreme Court observed that the limitation of 30 days would not apply in preferring an application under Section 456 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking restoration of immovable property, if the Trial Court had passed an order directing to handover the case property, while convicting the accused. 9 Union of India v. Dharam Pal, (2019) 15 SCC 388 The Supreme Court observed that solitary confinement of a person sentenced to death prior to the rejection of mercy petition is palpably illegal. 10 Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, (1991) CrLJ 3086 (SC) Judicial officers shall not visit the police station on their own except in connection with their official or judicial duties. In case it is necessary for a judicial officer or a subordinate judicial officer to visit the police station in connection with his official work, he must do so with prior information of his visit to District and Sessions Judge. 11 Chhanni v. State of U.P., 2006 CrLJ 4068 (SC) Wherever the Probation Offenders Act, 1958 is in force, in those areas Section 360 and 361 CrPC are not applicable.