Supreme Court Criminal Digest - June 2023

Approver need not be examined as witness by magistrate when cognizance is taken by Special Court under PC Act. A. Srinivasulu v. State of Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 485

Bail - Condition to furnish bank guarantee for granting bail is unsustainable in law. Karandeep Singh v. CBI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 482

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 197(1) – Discharge of Official Duties by Public Servants – Previous sanction requirement – Determination of the existence of a reasonable nexus between an alleged offence by a public servant and their official duties – Held, a public servant would be considered to have acted to purported to have acted in the discharge of their official duty at the time of the commission of an alleged offence if the said government employee could take cover – rightly or wrongly – under any existing policy, and as such, would be granted protection under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Appeal allowed. A. Srinivasulu v. State of Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 485

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 Cr.P.C., which envisages a discretionary power, empowers the court holding a trial to proceed against any person not shown or mentioned as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed a crime for which he ought to be tried together with the accused who is facing trial. Such power can be exercised by the court qua a person who is not named in the FIR, or named in the FIR but not shown as an accused in the charge-sheet. Therefore, what is essential for exercise of the power under section 319, Cr. PC is that the evidence on record must show the involvement of a person in the commission of a crime and that the said person, who has not been arraigned as an accused, should face trial together with the accused already arraigned. (Para 9) Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 306 (4)(a) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 5(2) - When the Special Court chooses to take cognizance directly under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the question of Approver being examined as a witness in the Court of the Magistrate as required by Section 306 (4)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not arise. A. Srinivasulu v. State of Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 485

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 306 and 307 - Section 306(4) CrPC contemplates that every person accepting a tender of pardon be examined as a witness both in the Court of the Magistrate taking cognizance and in the subsequent trial. The requirement of Section 306(4)(a) CrPC is relaxed in cases falling under Section 307 CrPC, which empowers the Court to which the case is committed for trial, itself to grant pardon. Where the Special Judge takes cognizance of offence directly, Section 306 of the Code would get by-passed it is Section 307 of the Code which would become applicable. A. Srinivasulu v. State of Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 485

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 – Previous Sanction – Contended that any act done by a public servant, which constitutes an offence of cheating, cannot be taken to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty – Distinguishing Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1, held, observations contained are too general in nature and cannot be regarded as the ratio flowing out of the said case or taken as judicially carving out an exception to a statutory prescription – Also held, no public servant is appointed with a mandate or authority to commit an offence and therefore, if the observations are applied, any act which constitutes an offence under any statute will go out of the purview of an act in the discharge of official duty – Appeal allowed. A. Srinivasulu v. State of Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 485

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Ante-timing of the FIR - Benefit of Doubt - In the absence of any credible eye witness to the incident and the fact that the presence of the accused at the place of incident is also not well established, we are constrained to accord benefit of doubt to both the accused. Even if we ignore certain other minor discrepancies in the oral evidence, the delay in conducting the post-mortem, the difference in the name of the weapons of crime, i.e., “tabal” or “palkati” which are more or less similar types of instruments for cutting crops, etc., it is a case where the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused appellants have committed the offence beyond any reasonable doubt. Mohd. Muslim v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 489

Police Rules, 1934 (Punjab) - For a person in uniformed service, like the police, adverse entry relating to his/her integrity and conduct is to be adjudged by the superior authority(ies) who record and approve such entry. Personnel having such remarks being compulsorily retired as per the statutory provisions. (Para 28) Aish Mohammed v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 483

Police Rules, 1934 (Punjab) - the Civil Judge was wrong to grant liberty to move for expunction of remarks especially in the absence of any such provisions. (Para 26) Aish Mohammed v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 483

Police Rules, 1934 (Punjab) - the Rules, originally framed in 1934, contemplated the authorities as “The Inspector-General, a Deputy Inspector-General, and a Superintendent of Police”. The “Inspector-General” of that time [when the service was called Imperial/Indian Police] headed the State Police, but is today known as, in most States and Union Territories, barring a handful, in the hierarchy of the State Police, as the Director-General of Police, an officer drawn from the Indian Police Service, who sits at the apex of the state police machinery. In fact, today the Inspector-General of Police is administratively subordinate to the Director-General of Police and the Additional Director-General of Police. The Rules were also framed at a time when the system of Ranges and Commissionerates had not been established. Indubitably, the Rules, for better or for worse (worse, we hazard) have not kept pace with the times. We do not appreciate why the authorities concerned are unable to update/amend the Rules with at least the correct official description of posts to obviate confusion. (Para 20, 21) Aish Mohammed v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 483

Section 197 Cr.P.C. - Sanction required even for acts done in excess of official duty. A. Srinivasulu v. State of Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 485

Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Person not named in the FIR can be added as accused if there's sufficient evidence of his involvement. Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Supreme Court acquits father-son duo in a 27 years old murder case by according benefit of doubt. Mohd. Muslim v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 489

Supreme Court says Punjab Police Rules outdated in terms of current hierarchy of police force; directs remedial measures. Aish Mohammed v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 483