Investigation:
General Diary Entry – Concerning preliminary enquiry – Failure – Effect of – Held: Failure to make entry in General Diary Concerning preliminary enquiry would not be per se illegal – There is difference between irregularity and illegality – Obligation of maintenance is part of course of conduct of the concerned officer, which may not itself have any bearing on the criminal trial unless some grave prejudice going to the root of the matter is shown to exist, at the time of trial – CrPC also does not bar any investigation where General Diary entry is not made – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Police Act, 1861 – s. 44.
Jurisdiction:
Writ jurisdiction and inherent jurisdiction – Scope of – Held: High Court is ill-equipped to answer questions of facts in exercise of its writ or inherent jurisdictions – The court cannot convert a mixed question of law and fact concerning the merits of the case, into a pure question of law – High Court
Judgments/Orders:
Reading of judgment – Held: Judgments are not legislations – They have to be read in the context and background discussions. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The concept of maintaining General Diary has its origin under Section 44 of Police Act of 1861 as applicable to States, which makes it an obligation for the concerned Police Officer to maintain a General Diary, but such non-maintenance per se may not be rendering the whole prosecution illegal. There is also no bar under any provision of CrPC barring investigating authority to investigate into matter, which may for some justifiable ground, not found to have been entered in the General Diary right after receiving the Confidential Information. However, on the other hand, such non-maintenance of General Diary may have consequences on the merits of the case, which is a matter of trial. Moreover, the explanation of the genesis of a criminal case, in some cases, plays an important role in establishing the prosecution’s case. The binding conclusions reached in the Lalitha Kumari case is an obligation of best efforts for the concerned officer to record all events concerning an enquiry. If the Officer has not recorded, then it is for the trial court to weigh the effect of the same for reasons provided therein. A court under a writ jurisdiction or under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is ill equipped to answer such questions of facts. The treatment provided by the High Court in converting a mixed question of law and fact concerning the merits of the case, into a pure question of law may not be proper in light of settled jurisprudence. Nothing in Lalitha Kumari case justifies the conclusion reached by the High Court. Judgments are not legislations, they have to be read in the context and background discussions. [Paras 17, 18][557G-H; 558-A-D]
2. CrPC itself has differentiated between irregularity and illegality. The obligation of maintenance of General Diary is part of course of conduct of the concerned officer, which may not itself have any bearing on the criminal trial unless some grave prejudice going to the root of matter is shown to exist at the time of the trial. Conspicuous absence of any provision under CrPC concerning the omissions and errors during investigation also bolsters the conclusion reached herein. [Para 19][558-E-F]
3. Moreover, the requirement of the preliminary enquiry is well established by judicial precedents as a check on mushrooming false prosecution against public servants by persons who misuse the process of law for their personal vengeance. Such preliminary check would be beneficial and has been continuously approved by catena of judgments of this Court. [Para 20] [558-F-G]
Lalitha Kumari v. Govt. of A.P. & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC
1 : [2013] 14 SCR 713 ; Smt. Kesar Devi v. Union of India & Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 427 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 1; Union of India and Ors. v. T. Nathamuni (2014) 16 SCC 285 : [2014] 12 SCR 297 ; Niranjan Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 142 : [1956] SCR 734 – relied on.
P. Slirajuddin v. State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595 : [1970] 3 SCR 931 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.