KISHORE KUMAR GYANCHANDANI v. G.D. MEHROTRA AND ORS. (2011) 15 SCC 513

RELEVANT FACTS

One person G.D. Mehrotra (Respondent) is charged under section 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for rash and negligent driving on the public road. A charge sheet/final form was filed in the court by the police after investigation. After submitting the final form, the complainant/ appellant filed a protest petition as a complaint under court. On this complaint, Respondent filed a petition under Hon’ble High Court to dissolve this complaint which was filed after the submitting final form. High Court by the impugned order, having set aside the order taking cognizance and issuance of the process in the complaint proceedings. Now, the complainant appeals to the Hon’ble Supreme Court to assail the order of the High Court under Section 202 of Cr. P.C.

ISSUES

Whether the court can allow the complaint filed by the complainant after submission of the final file under section 202 of Cr.P.C.?

RULE OF LAW

• Section 156, 173, 190, 201, and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Section 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING

• In the concerned case, the main point of contention is related to the complaint which was filed by the complainant after submitting the final form of investigation by police.
• Learned counsel of the Appellant/ complainant referred the case of Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha and Others, in this case, it was held that Acceptance of final form does not debar the Magistrate from taking cognizance based on the materials produced in a complaint proceeding.
• There is police filed a final form after an investigation under section 173 of the Cr.P.C. and Where the Magistrate accepts the final form submitted by the police, the right of the complainant to file a regular complaint is not taken away and in fact, on such a complaint being filed the Magistrate follows the procedure under Section 201 of the Cr.P.C. and takes cognizance of the materials produced by the complainant make out an offense.
• And the learned counsel of the Respondent referred to the case law Abhinandan Jha and others v. the State of Bihar and another, in this case, the court stated that the after acceptance of final form Magistrate cannot direct the investigation agency to file a charge-sheet. But Magistrate has separate power to direct the investigation agency to further investigation into the matter or even to take cognizance on the basis of the materials produced even though the police might have filed the final form.
• Based on all of these arguments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court finally allowed the appeal filed by the complainant under section 202 of Cr. P.C.

The post Acceptance of a charge sheet does not debar Magistrate from taking cognizance appeared first on LexForti .

SHIVNATH PRASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR (2008) 15 SCC 735

RELEVANT FACTS

A man Shivnath Prasad (Appellant) was arrested for rash and negligent driving under section 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Appellant was convicted for simple imprisonment for six months and one year by the lower court. He filed an appeal before Additional District and Sessions Judge but the court also convicted and sentenced the appellant. Now, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the order of the Single Judge Bench of the Patna High Court.

ISSUES

• Whether appellant convicted and sentenced under section 279 and 304A of IPC was justified?
• Whether the lower and High Court convict person with proper evidence of matter?

RULE OF LAW

• Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Section 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING

Learned counsel of Appellant said in the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there are many disabilities which the High Court did not notice:

• The post-mortem report of the deceased person is not available.
• The investigating officer, Doctor, and the informant were not examined.
• There are also prosecution witness-3 who stated that he is the son of the deceased person and not the informant.
• The prosecution witness-4 claimed to be an eye witness of the crime but he was not examined during the trial.
• It is crucial to note that the prosecution lawyer has mentioned there being five eyewitnesses while three of their statements were not in support of the prosecution.
• Learned counsel of the appellant also said that the Hon’ble High Court arrived at its decision without performing all of the necessary scrutinies. It is not valid according to section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• According to section 397 of Cr. P.C. “The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situated within its local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself; to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court.”
• And according to section 401 of Cr. P.C. the High Court has ‘power of revision’. And it is necessary for the interests of Justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.
• By all the argument of the learned counsel of the Appellant, finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the order of the High Court and remit the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.

The post A court shall not convict a person without proper scrutiny of the matter appeared first on LexForti .