Top
Top Stories

HC Can't Interfere In The Manner Of Investigation In Exercise Of Powers Under Section 482 CrPC : SC [Read Judgment]

Ashok Kini
4 Sep 2019 2:04 PM GMT
HC Can
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, cannot interfere in the manner of investigation.

The Allahabad High Court, while disposing a petition filed by accused under Section 482 CrPC had issued a slew of directions, including the direction to change the investigating officer and also to subject the erring officers/officials named in the supplementary report to disciplinary action.

Such directions are beyond the scope of the High Court in a petition under Section 482 of the Code seeking quashing of the charge-sheet, said Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta. The court, in State of UP vs. Aman Mittal observed:

The directions of the High Court in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code against the interest of the accused in a petition filed by the accused are beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court and, thus, all such observations and directions are quashed.

The directions issued including in respect of change of Investigating Officer and that the District Judge to be associated with various action, falling exclusively in the domain of the Investigating Agency are patently beyond the scope of the petition under Section 482 of the Code and are, therefore, liable to be set aside.

Another issue considered in this case was whether all the offences under IPC are excluded in view of Section 3 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 or only the offences relating to the weights and measures as are contained in Chapter XIII IPC alone stand excluded in view of Section 51 of the Act. In this regard, the bench observed:

  • Section 3 of the Act completely overrides the provisions of Chapter XIII of IPC in respect of the offences and penalties imposable for violations of the provisions of the Act, it being special Act. Therefore, if the offence is disclosed to be made out under the provisions of the Act, an accused cannot be charged for the same offence under Chapter XIII of IPC.
  • Reading of Section 51 of the Act makes it clear that the provisions of IPC insofar as they relate to offences with regard to weight or measure, shall not apply to any offence which is punishable under the Act. Therefore, the provisions of IPC which relate to offences with regard to weight 26 and measure as contained in Chapter XIII of IPC alone will not apply. No person can be charged for an offence relating to weight or measure falling under Chapter XIII of IPC in view of the provisions of the Act.
  • The scheme of the Act is for the offences for use of weights and measures which are non-standard and for tampering with or altering any standards, secondary standards or working standards of any weight or measure. The Act does not foresee any offence relating to cheating as defined in Section 415 of IPC or the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Similarly, an act performed in furtherance of a common intention disclosing an offence under Section 34 is not covered by the provisions of the Act.
  • An offence disclosing a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence which is punishable under Section 120-B IPC is also not an offence under the Act. Since such offences are not punishable under the provisions of the Act, therefore, the prosecution for such offences could be maintained since the trial of such offences is not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act. Similar is the provision in respect of the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC as such offences are not covered by the provisions of the Act.
  • The bench set aside the High Court order, except the direction to quash the charges under Sections 265 and 267 IPC. The Court also rejected the argument that the Act is a complete Code which contains the provisions of offences and penalties under the said Act, therefore, for any violation of the provisions of the Act, the prosecution can be lodged only under the Act and not for the offences even if disclosed under IPC. 

Click here to Read/Download Judgment


Next Story